Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Recognition and enforcement

Legal area

Court

30 May 2025

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

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-24-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-24-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons to set aside the Malaysian Partial Final Award is dismissed: the Malaysian tribunal acted within its powers in bifurcating and deciding admissibility/res judicata first; the London Award is binding and had not been set aside at its seat; Plaintiff participated in the London arbitration and failed to pursue supervisory remedies; Plaintiff cannot challenge the London Award by commencing a fresh arbitration in Malaysia; the Plaintiff failed to prove any of the narrow statutory grounds under section 37 (including fraud, breach of natural justice or conflict with public pol…
18 Oct 2024

PEMPETISYEN Hah Tiing Siu Pamela Ling Yueh

Citation

WA-33-614-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-33-614-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court granted the anti-suit injunction because Malaysia is the natural forum (strongest connection via citizenship, domicile, marriage and assets), the Petitioner did not submit to Singapore jurisdiction and did not delay, and allowing Singapore proceedings would be vexatious and oppressive by precluding Malaysian jurisdiction to divide matrimonial assets under section 76 LRA; granting relief in personam did not offend comity.
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.
3 Sept 2021

MASENANG SDN.BHD SABANILAM ENTERPROSE SDN.BHD

Citation

NO:02(i)-20-03/2020(S) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Court

i
Case number

NO:02(i)-20-03/2020(S) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The Arbitration Act 2005 applies the juridical seat doctrine to domestic arbitrations; the specific seat (here Kuala Lumpur) determines which High Court has exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over regulation, registration, enforcement and setting aside of the award; consequently the Kota Kinabalu High Court order purporting to set aside and remit parts of the award was void and the Kuala Lumpur seat court's registration prevails.
22 Mar 2019

SABANILAM ENTERPRISE SDN BHD MASENANG SDN BHD

Citation

S-02(NCvC)(A)-693-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

NCvC
Case number

S-02(NCvC)(A)-693-03/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

In a domestic arbitration governed by the Arbitration Act 2005 the curial law is uniform throughout Malaysia; the juridical concept of seat/venue is irrelevant to oust concurrent supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak where a statutory limb under section 23 CJA is satisfied; accordingly the Kota Kinabalu High Court had jurisdiction to hear the originating summons to set aside the award and the High Court's striking out for lack of jurisdiction was wrong.

Malaysia Case Law

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

PEMPETISYEN Hah Tiing Siu Pamela Ling Yueh

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

MASENANG SDN.BHD SABANILAM ENTERPROSE SDN.BHD

SABANILAM ENTERPRISE SDN BHD MASENANG SDN BHD