Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Arbitration clause interpretation

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2023

SOLAR DISTRICT COOLING SDN BHD 1. ) KUMPULAN CLO BERSEKUTU SDN BHD 2. ) RENOWN PROJECTS SDN BHD

Citation

BB-A52C-14-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Court

Sessions Court
Case number

BB-A52C-14-09/2022 (Mahkamah Sesyen)

Clause 16(c) did not create an absolute, mandatory bar to court proceedings because its wording conferred discretion and did not impose a mutual, mandatory obligation to arbitrate prior to court action; Defendant First's inaction meant Plaintif was not bound to await arbitration and the application to stay and refer to arbitration was dismissed.
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 incorporated the terms of the Package S8 Sub-Contract including Clause 38, Clause 39's express submission to Malaysian courts and Clause 38.3's permissive wording ('may') make arbitration optional not mandatory; the Defendant had not abandoned any right to arbitrate by seeking time extensions and entering appearance, but because arbitration was not mandatory the stay under s10 was refused and the application dismissed with costs.