Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside arbitral award (s37)

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2025

GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-30-07/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove any of the narrow statutory grounds in s37: the arbitrator considered the parties' submissions and evidence, made fact-based credibility determinations (including that plaintiff waived strict notice requirements and that plaintiff's expert lacked independence), and resolved contract interpretation and causation questions within her jurisdiction; therefore the setting aside application was dismissed and the Award registered and enforced under s38 as formal requirements were met.
27 Jan 2023

TUNAS MANJA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION (KL) SDN BHD SPNB ASPIRASI SENDIRIAN BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-27-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-27-07/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

SPNB failed to discharge the burden on a balance of probabilities to show any statutory ground under s37 AA 2005 warranting setting aside; alleged jurisdictional defects were not timely raised before the tribunal and separability preserves arbitral competence to decide antecedent misconduct; alleged breaches of natural justice were either challenges to merits or immaterial to outcome; costs were the subject of procedural direction and uncontested by SPNB; consequently both the application to set aside the Award and the application to set aside the ex-parte enforcement order were dismissed.
4 Feb 2022

OCNED WATER TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) UEM BUILDERS BERHAD 2. ) EDGENTA PROPEL BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-1-01/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court dismissed both applications because the Arbitrator's findings were rooted in the parties' pleadings, evidence and submissions (including express pleadings and oral evidence on EoT, commencement, and delayed issuance of LoA), the impugned observations were part of the tribunal's reasoning or immaterial to the outcome, UB-EP failed to prove a new unpleaded issue or a material breach of natural justice that affected the result, and the court exercised residual discretion not to set aside the Award; procedural non-compliance in Rules of Court did not vitiate enforcement under s38/s39 AA…
30 Nov 2020

VISTASIK SDN BHD PROPEL SYNERGY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-44-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-44-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court found only one challenged aspect sustainable: the Arbitrator decided on matters beyond the scope of the submission (the Arbitrator's findings on delay in certification of payments and delay in payment) and that part of the Award fell within s37(1)(a)(v); applying s37(3) the Court severed and set aside only that part. All other grounds failed: the arbitrator had afforded fair opportunity, applied contract interpretation and evidence assessment within his remit, and the remainder of the Award was enforceable under s38 AA2005. Costs of RM15,000.00 each awarded to Vistasik for both appl…

Malaysia Case Law

GLOMAC KRISTAL SDN BHD NORTON CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD

TUNAS MANJA DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION (KL) SDN BHD SPNB ASPIRASI SENDIRIAN BERHAD

OCNED WATER TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) UEM BUILDERS BERHAD 2. ) EDGENTA PROPEL BERHAD

VISTASIK SDN BHD PROPEL SYNERGY SDN BHD