Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Kompetenz‑kompetenz

Legal area

Court

5 May 2025

1. ) PT WIJAYA KARYA (PERSERO) TBK (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA) 2. ) WIJAYA KARYA PERSERO SDN. BHD. 1. ) ZECON BERHAD 2. ) ZECON CONSTRUCTION (SARAWAK) SDN. BHD.

Citation

Q-02(C)(A)-1971-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

Q-02(C)(A)-1971-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and affirmed the arbitral award because the parties consented to a single arbitration, PMSA-2 operated as a supplementary agreement to PMSA-1, implied agency and the group-of-companies context bound the principals and nominees such that the tribunal had jurisdiction under s.18(7) Arbitration Act 2005, the dispositive portion was sufficiently certain, and there was no serious/material breach of natural justice that would have affected the outcome.
28 Feb 2025

SETIA AWAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD SPNB ASPIRASI SDN BHD

Citation

A-02(IM)(C)-1587-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

A-02(IM)(C)-1587-09/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

An arbitration clause that gives either party an option to proceed to court or to arbitration is a valid arbitration agreement under AA 2005; where a party validly elects arbitration an arbitration agreement comes into existence and the court is required to stay proceedings under s10(1) unless the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of performance; gaps in the clause (seat, number, appointment) are filled by default statutory provisions and do not invalidate the clause; the court may make a prima facie determination and refer the matter to arbitration, while s18 preserves the…
11 Dec 2024

YAYASAN ISLAM PULAU PINANG PEMBINAAN APM SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-22-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-22-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that the learned Arbitrator had the power to rule on its own jurisdiction under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and AIAC Rule 20.1; the arbitration agreement in clause 66 is separable and remains binding despite termination of the Letter of Award, therefore the Partial Award upholding jurisdiction stood and the originating summons to set it aside was dismissed with costs.
27 Feb 2024

ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHD STAMFORD COLLEGE (MALACCA) SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1811-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

B-02(IM)(NCvC)-1811-11/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The arbitration clause was ambiguous and gave parties an option to litigate or arbitrate, creating no binding obligation to arbitrate; applying the just and convenient approach the Court concluded the learned Judicial Commissioner correctly declined to stay the High Court action, so the appeal is dismissed.
17 Nov 2023

TUMPUAN MEGAH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ING BANK N.V. 2. ) O.W. BUNKER FAR EAST (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Citation

W-02(IM)-66-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)-66-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

Where a registering High Court is faced with bona fide, particularised allegations that an arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the arbitration agreement was never formed (including allegations of fraud), the registering court must inquire independently and may order a de novo hearing with oral and expert evidence; the High Court below erred in refusing such a trial and in relying on comity/res judicata to bar the passive remedy; appeal allowed and order for trial under O.67 r.9(2) ROC granted.
30 Oct 2023

GISE KAM KWAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE LTD Antara Steel Mills Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-2329-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCvC)-2329-12/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal held the recital reference to the main agreements did not incorporate the arbitration clause into the TSA because the operative part of the TSA contains a new and differently worded dispute resolution clause (Clause 6) referring to taking 'legal action' and recovering 'court fee', indicating the parties intended court recovery proceedings and that the TSA is a standalone settlement superseding the main agreements; accordingly the High Court's stay under s10 AA2005 was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court.
4 Aug 2023

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found prima facie valid, binding and capable arbitration agreements in the relevant Letters of Award (including LA 24.8.2016 and the four LOAs with D2), resolved the apparent reference to a 'Regional Centre for Arbitration in Singapore' as falling within SIAC's ambit, and held that under s10 Arbitration Act 2005 the court must stay the court proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration; collateral factual disputes (Collaboration Agreement, agency/alter-ego, multiplicity) are matters for the arbitral tribunal (or trial) and not for determination at this interlocutory stage.
4 Aug 2023

Uzma Engineering Sdn Bhd 1. ) Khan Co. Ltd 2. ) Kong Offshore Malaysia Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Enclosure 121 is dismissed because distinct arbitration agreements exist between the parties and the Arbitration Act 2005 governs arbitration matters; section 24A(2) CJA is inapplicable where arbitration agreements govern, the issues raised were previously decided (res judicata/functus officio) and the application amounts to abuse of process and estoppel; party autonomy and arbitration procedures (including appointment of experts) must be respected.
15 Aug 2022

Macsteel International Far East Limited Lysaght Galvanized Steel Berhad

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2003-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2003-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the learned Judicial Commissioner did not misapply his discretion in refusing the s.10 stay and granting anti-arbitration injunctions because there was a serious factual dispute (allegations of forgery) that required a fuller investigation which, on balance and for reasons of justice and convenience (including subpoena power), should be carried out by the Malaysian High Court; accordingly the appeals were dismissed and the High Court's directions and injunctions were upheld.
15 Aug 2022

Macsteel International Far East Limited Lysaght Corrugated Pipe Sdn Bhd

Citation

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2002-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

W-02(IM)(NCC)-2002-10/2021 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's exercise of discretion refusing the s.10 stay and granting anti-arbitration injunctions because the validity of the arbitration agreements was genuinely in dispute on allegation of forgery, the High Court was the more appropriate forum to investigate limited issues of validity (including subpoena power over local intermediary PR), and no court properly addressing the facts would have decided otherwise; therefore appeals dismissed.