Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitration clause

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

FTC HOLDING SDN BHD 1. ) ISARB MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) ISA BIN BATHARUL ZAMAN

Citation

BA-22NCvC-500-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-500-10/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There is a serious question to be tried; the court will preserve interim relief to prevent the arbitral process being rendered nugatory but will limit the freezing order to the precise pleaded sum of RM3,359,005.86 and refer the substantive dispute to arbitration, balancing protection of the plaintiff's claim against undue prejudice to the defendants.
10 Oct 2025

YES TRAVEL & HOLIDAYS SDN. BHD. 1. ) MIKI TRAVEL (HONG KONG) LIMITED 2. ) MIKI TRAVEL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-12ANCC-88-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCC-88-10/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal is dismissed because the CBA’s arbitration clause governs the dispute; the Paris Tour Quotation did not displace the CBA as it contained no operative terms to do so and functioned as a performance-level document under the CBA; the stay properly extends to the 2nd Defendant because the conspiracy/tort allegations are derivative of the same factual matrix and staying avoids multiplicity and inconsistent findings, giving full effect to the arbitration agreement.
16 May 2025

PEMPETISYEN BRILLIANT STAR CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD EXYTE MALAYSIA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-28NCC-225-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28NCC-225-02/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The petition is struck out because the respondent has demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds over the claimed debt, the dispute requires adjudication by arbitration or trial (not resolution on affidavit in winding-up), and the petition therefore constitutes an abuse of process; costs of MYR 15,000 awarded.
22 Jan 2025

1. ) DENG CHENGLIANG 2. ) XIE YONG 1. ) Levin Tan Eu Sheng [Nod At Encl. 19] 2. ) TAN TIONG KIAT

Citation

WA-22NCC-216-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-216-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court ordered a partial stay: claims arising under the Share Sale Agreement were stayed and referred to arbitration under s10 AA2005 because Clause 10.3 constituted a valid arbitration agreement; claims arising under the separate Letter of Guarantee were not stayed because the guarantee created an independent obligation and expressly conferred jurisdiction on the Courts of Malaysia, and the arbitration clause could not be read as incorporating the guarantee by plain wording.
21 Jan 2025

V Medical Services M Sdn Bhd Swissray Asia Healthcare Co. Ltd

Citation

02(f)-1-02/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

f
Case number

02(f)-1-02/2024(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Federal Court adopted the Sian approach: when a winding-up petition rests on a debt that is the subject of an arbitration agreement the Companies Court must apply the higher insolvency threshold and only restrain, stay or dismiss the petition if the debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds; resort to arbitration follows if that higher test is met. The Fortuna injunction was reinstated because the Court found a genuine and substantial dispute on the material facts and admitted fresh evidence affecting the assessment.
16 Apr 2024

CENTURY BUILTECH SDN BHD MUHAMAD SYAFIE BIN RAMLI (BERNIAGA SEBAGAI PEMBINAAN SYAFIE RAMLI)

Citation

WA-22NCC-662-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-662-12/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found Rising Star, not the plaintiff, was the main sub-contractor; the undated Agreement was a draft/template not intended to bind the parties; parties instead conducted themselves under an arrangement evidenced by purchase orders, delivery orders, invoices and a Credit Facility which established a contract between plaintiff and defendant for sale and supply of goods. Defendant had made partial payments and remained liable for outstanding sums. Arbitration clause was not invoked and did not oust the court. Judgment entered for plaintiff and costs awarded.
27 Oct 2023

1. ) DELTA-SPORT HANDELSKONTOR GMBH 2. ) ELVES TRADING & CONSULT SDN BHD 1. ) TETUAN HARJIT SANDHU WAN & ASSOCIATES 2. ) HARJIT SINGH SANDHU PIHAK KETIGA MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

WA-22NCvC-396-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-396-05/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to stay was dismissed because the Defendants had unequivocally admitted liability and offered to refund the sums demanded, removing any 'dispute' to be referred to arbitration under clause 7; accordingly the subject matter fell outside the arbitration clause and section 10 did not apply.
18 Sept 2023

SUMBER KHAZANAH SDN BHD (DALAM LIKUIDASI) APEX COMMUNICATIONS SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-76-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-76-10/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Although the Letter of Award prima facie incorporated the terms of the Package S8 Sub-Contract including clause 38, clause 38 was drafted as permissive and clause 39 contained an express submission to Malaysian courts; therefore arbitration was not mandatory and the defendant's application for a stay to refer to arbitration was dismissed. The defendant had not abandoned the right to arbitrate but the arbitration clause was optional in the contract as construed.
10 May 2023

TECHNYGROUP HOLDINGS (M) SDN. BHD. KIDE INTERNATIONAL SDN. BHD.

Citation

BA-24NCC-41-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCC-41-04/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found plaintiff proved irreparable harm but failed to establish that the respondent had no chance of success because the statutory demand relied on CIPAA adjudication awards and the plaintiff's own communications constituted an acknowledgment/proposal to settle; accordingly the ex parte Fortuna injunction was set aside and the substantive originating summons dismissed with costs.
11 Oct 2022

MEGAT ABDUL MUNIR BIN MEGAT ABDULLAH RAFAIE & 96 OTHERS MOHD NASRI BIN ABDUL RAHIM & 18 OTHERS

Citation

PA-22NCvC-45-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-22NCvC-45-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Judge found plaintiffs proved fraudulent misrepresentations and conspiracy by D1, D2, D3 and D8: RHB documents and TradeSmart account presentations were false, land title extracts were not owned by defendants, D1 admitted non-payment and was an untruthful witness; Loan Agreements had expired and repayment became due; D1,D2,D3 and D8 engaged in fraudulent trading within s.540 Companies Act 2016; accordingly D1,D2,D3,D5,D6 and D8 were held jointly and severally liable to repay RM12,988,685, D1's counterclaim dismissed, corporate veil of D8 lifted in respect of liability, and injunctions adjuste…