Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public policy

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2026

Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd Tan See Meng

Citation

WA-24-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Application dismissed because it was filed approximately three years late without good reason so extension of time was not warranted; the public policy ground fails because registration of a final foreign judgment under REJA is distinct from initiating substantive proceedings to recover a gambling debt and REJA's s.5(1)(a)(v) must be applied narrowly; alleged Evidence Act non-compliance is not a ground under REJA; costs RM 5,000 awarded to judgment creditor.
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.
29 Sept 2025

KASYAF BINA SDN BHD LEMBAGA KEMAJUAN TANAH PERSEKUTUAN (FELDA)

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-64-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-64-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Plaintiff failed to prove any breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with public policy under Section 37; the complaints were disagreements with the Arbitrator's factual findings and contractual interpretation which are not reviewable by the High Court; the Setting Aside Application is dismissed and the Award is upheld.
4 Sept 2025

ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD

Citation

B-02(C)(A)-2128-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

B-02(C)(A)-2128-12/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's setting aside of the 2nd Final Award because the 2nd Arbitrator erred in summarily terminating the 2nd and 3rd arbitrations, thereby depriving the respondent of its right to be heard which constitutes a breach of natural justice and conflicts with public policy under s37; however the Court limited the respondent's available claims by holding that estoppel by conduct (the appellant's set-off letter and the respondent's acquiescence and subsequent court recognition) bars any further claims under Progress Certificates 32 & 33 and for the retention su…
28 Aug 2025

PERDANA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN. BHD. AKIRAN SERVICES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-9-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the arbitrator acted within the scope of the arbitration and on matters fairly raised by the pleadings and evidence; issues of waiver and estoppel were sufficiently pleaded by facts and conduct, parties had opportunity to address them, there was no material breach of natural justice nor public policy breach, and the damages awarded were compensatory under s.74 Contracts Act; accordingly the application to set aside is dismissed and the award is registered and enforced as a judgment.
28 Aug 2025

AKIRAN SERVICES SDN BHD KPJ PERDANA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-17-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-17-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held the arbitrator acted within the scope of the arbitration and based on pleaded facts and evidence; there was no breach of natural justice or conflict with Malaysian public policy; s42 is deleted and inapplicable; accordingly the application to set aside the award is dismissed and the application to register the award is allowed, with costs awarded to the defendant.
26 Aug 2025

GANAESH RAU A/L B.A.RAMARAU 1. ) BHASKAR A/L NADARAJAN 2. ) PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN NEGERI SELANGOR

Citation

BA-22NCvC-487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCvC-487-12/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The 1st SPA was unenforceable because at the time D1 had no proprietary title to transfer (only an offer/option), therefore nemo dat applied and the contract was void and unenforceable; fraud was not proven on the balance of probabilities; D2, being a stranger and constrained by state resettlement policy, cannot be ordered to sell; having received RM40,000 under a contract later held void, D1 must restitute the sum with interest under s.66 Contracts Act 1950.
12 Aug 2025

PBJV GROUP SDN BHD PETROFAC (MALAYSIA-PM 304) LIMITED

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-2-01/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

PBJV failed to identify a specific, material breach of natural justice connected to the making of the Award; the Tribunal's reliance on exhibited third‑party reports and its interpretation of pleadings were matters of evidential assessment within the Tribunal's purview, not procedural unfairness; therefore the Award could not be set aside under s 37 and was enforceable under s 38 AA 2005.
10 Mar 2025

1. ) Reflex Media, Inc. 2. ) Clover8 Investments Pte. Ltd. 1. ) Endeavor Standard Sdn. Bhd. 2. ) Chan Eu Boon

Citation

WA-22IP-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22IP-2-02/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Malaysian conflict of law rules apply to assess jurisdiction of foreign courts; presence in a foreign jurisdiction for jurisdictional purposes can be established by actively carrying on commercial activities or entering transactions with residents via domain addresses/websites (mere accessibility is insufficient); where such activities create a real and substantial connection, the foreign court had jurisdiction; statutory damages awarded by the U.S. court under its law are not penal in the public-law sense and are enforceable in Malaysia; accordingly the U.S. judgment was enforceable and was…
12 Feb 2025

MRCB BUILDERS SDN. BHD. BRILLIANT STAR CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-34-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-34-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court set aside the arbitrator's Final Award under s37 AA 2005 because the arbitrator made a serious and material error in relation to the effect of section 33A of the CIDB Act 1994 on the contract and Award; that error was likely to have affected the outcome and thus enforcement would be injurious to public good and justice. The court refused to remit the dispute to a new tribunal and ordered relief in favour of the application to set aside (granted specified prayers of OS34) and dismissed the enforcement application (OS49).