Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-award interest

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2025

LIZIZ STANDACO SDN BHD Kerajaan Malaysia

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-14-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-14-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court set aside the arbitral Award dated 20.1.2025 under s37(1)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act 2005 because the arbitrator awarded pre-award interest at 5% p.a. without giving the parties notice or an opportunity to address that rate and failed to consider with a fair and open mind the expert evidence and submissions on quantum, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice in a manner that could have materially affected the outcome.
2 Sept 2020

TOSHIBA CORPORATION YONG AH HUAT

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-38-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-38-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was allowed in part: the High Court must recognise and register the ICC Final Award under s38 to enable enforcement and compliance with the Escrow Agreement, but the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in awarding pre-award interest because the amendment (s33(6)) creating such entitlement cannot be applied retrospectively to impair the Defendant's vested right; there was no abuse of process or breach of public policy or natural justice sufficient to refuse recognition; costs were fixed in favour of the Plaintiff.
16 Jun 2020

UDA LAND SDN BHD PUNCAK SEPAKAT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-29-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-29-06/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the arbitral award because the arbitrator committed a fundamental denial of natural justice and serious legal error by refusing or failing to adjudicate the plaintiff's counterclaim/set-off arising from the same transaction, misapplying insolvency and set-off authorities (failing to engage with Sime Diamond), and by awarding pre-award interest without jurisdiction given the Interpretation Act protection of existing proceedings; those errors materially prejudiced the plaintiff and met the narrow public policy threshold for intervention under s.37 AA.
7 Nov 2019

SUNWAY CREATIVE STONES SDN BHD SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2019 & WA-24C(ARB)-20-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2019 & WA-24C(ARB)-20-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed the setting aside application and allowed enforcement: YTL waived any objection to the arbitrator's delay by failing to timely object or seek termination under ss16/18 AA 2005; Article 21.3 delay did not ipso facto void the arbitrator's mandate where parties did not act; the arbitrator had jurisdiction under the parties' arbitration agreement and PAM Rules (and s33(6) AA 2005) to award pre-award interest and did not breach natural justice; delay alone did not meet the narrow public policy threshold for setting aside; award enforced as judgment with costs.
9 Aug 2019

KRIS HEAVY ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD EP ENGINEERING SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-7-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-7-02/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found the Reasoned Decision constituted an "award" within s2 AA2005 but the plaintiff failed to prove a breach of natural justice or conflict with Malaysia's public policy under s37(1)(b)(ii)/s37(2)(b)(ii); the arbitrator correctly concluded he was functus officio as to claims other than costs and had no jurisdiction to make an additional award post-Partial Award under the 1952 Act; remittal or court-ordered pre-award interest was unwarranted given the statutory limits on court intervention and the plaintiff's failure to meet the required threshold.

Malaysia Case Law

LIZIZ STANDACO SDN BHD Kerajaan Malaysia

TOSHIBA CORPORATION YONG AH HUAT

UDA LAND SDN BHD PUNCAK SEPAKAT SDN BHD

SUNWAY CREATIVE STONES SDN BHD SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

KRIS HEAVY ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD EP ENGINEERING SDN BHD