Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside arbitral awards

Legal area

Court

11 Jan 2024

PANASONIC APPLIANCES AIR-CONDITIONING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. ALPHA SEIKO PLASTICS SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-13-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-13-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Interim Award is a procedural interlocutory ruling falling outside the statutory definition of an "award" under Section 2; alternatively, if treated as an award, the Plaintiff failed to establish a breach of natural justice or a public policy violation causing real prejudice, so the summons to set aside is dismissed.
29 Nov 2022

Pook Fong Fee and Aswath Ramkrishnan [Messrs Ahmad Deniel, Ruben & Co.] Abdullah Az-Zubayr bin Awaluddin and Ashmadi bin Othman [Messrs Zulpadli & Edham]

Citation

SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court refused to set aside the Final Award and ordered recognition and enforcement: the arbitrator was validly appointed and constituted, the alleged conflict of interest had been previously litigated and is res judicata, the parties had been given opportunity to be heard and the arbitrator addressed the material issues so there was no breach of natural justice or excess of jurisdiction warranting setting aside, and the court will not re-examine or overturn the arbitrator's factual findings; accordingly OS 23 to set aside is dismissed and OS 18 to recognise and enforce the award is allowe…
29 Nov 2022

Pook Fong Fee and Aswath Ramkrishnan [Messrs Ahmad Deniel, Ruben & Co.] Abdullah Az-Zubayr bin Awaluddin and Ashmadi bin Othman [Messrs Zulpadli & Edham]

Citation

SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

SAMAN PEMULA NO.: WA-24C(ARB)-18-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Final Award is recognised and enforced because the respondent failed to prove any statutory ground to set aside or refuse recognition: the arbitrator was validly appointed, considered and analyzed the evidence and issues, there was no breach of natural justice or jurisdictional excess, and the alleged conflict of interest was previously litigated and estopped; accordingly minimal judicial interference requires upholding the award.
16 Nov 2022

1. ) LUXOR HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) LUXOR YRM SDN BHD SQA BUILDERS SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C(ARB)-9-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24C(ARB)-9-09/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that rights to invoke s42 AA are acquired/accrued at the commencement of arbitral proceedings under s23 AA and preserved by s30(1) Interpretation Acts; repeal of s42 by Act A1569 does not retrospectively extinguish vested rights in arbitrations commenced before repeal; nonetheless the reference under s42 failed threshold requirements because many questions were factual/mixed or did not arise out of the award and/or did not substantially affect rights, thus OS No.9 was dismissed; the Award was not set aside under s37 because alleged excesses and natural justice complaints were n…
30 May 2022

RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD

Citation

BA-24C(ARB)-4-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-24C(ARB)-4-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court dismissed Ragawang's application to set aside the awards and allowed One Amerin's applications to recognize and enforce the awards because the arbitrator acted within the terms of the submission, any procedural or timing issues were either remedied by proper extension or were not material breaches of natural justice, practising solicitors may duly certify copies for enforcement, and enforcement applications were within the six-year limitation period; costs award under s44 is not a ground for setting aside under s37.
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.

Malaysia Case Law

PANASONIC APPLIANCES AIR-CONDITIONING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. ALPHA SEIKO PLASTICS SDN. BHD.

Pook Fong Fee and Aswath Ramkrishnan [Messrs Ahmad Deniel, Ruben & Co.] Abdullah Az-Zubayr bin Awaluddin and Ashmadi bin Othman [Messrs Zulpadli & Edham]

Pook Fong Fee and Aswath Ramkrishnan [Messrs Ahmad Deniel, Ruben & Co.] Abdullah Az-Zubayr bin Awaluddin and Ashmadi bin Othman [Messrs Zulpadli & Edham]

1. ) LUXOR HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) LUXOR YRM SDN BHD SQA BUILDERS SDN BHD

RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD

MASENANG SDN.BHD SABANILAM ENTERPROSE SDN.BHD