Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arbitrability

Legal area

Court

30 Jan 2026

PERBADANAN KEMAJUAN PERTANIAN NEGERI PAHANG NADA RIMBA SDN BHD

Citation

CB-24NCvC-128-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-128-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held the dispute concerns statutory rights and the statutory remedy of removal of a private caveat under Section 327 National Land Code which vests exclusive power in the Court/Registrar and is not capable of determination by arbitration; accordingly the arbitration clause is inoperative for the relief sought and, compounded by the Defendant's failure to commence arbitration and attempt to compel the Plaintiff to do so, a stay under s.10 Arbitration Act 2005 is refused.
30 Jan 2026

Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Negeri Pahang (PKPP) NADA RIMBA SDN BHD

Citation

CB-24NCvC-202-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-202-08/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Disputes concerning removal of a private caveat under s.327 National Land Code are statutory, fall within an exclusive legislative scheme and are not capable of determination by arbitration; accordingly the arbitration clause is inoperative with respect to the relief sought and the mandatory stay under s.10(1) Arbitration Act 2005 does not apply, therefore the defendant's stay application is dismissed.
25 Jul 2025

1. ) SEMASA SENTRAL SDN BHD (P dalam Tindakan Asal & D1 dalam Tuntutan Balas) 2. ) Jewel Builders & Resources (M) Sdn Bhd 1. ) GLOBAL FUSION SDN BHD 2. ) Malaysia Resources Corporation Berhad 3. ) MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd (D3 dalam Tuntutan Ba

Citation

WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-320-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found D3 and D4 had not taken disqualifying steps in the proceedings and that the arbitration clauses in the Letters of Award covered the dispute, but in the exercise of its discretion under s 10(2) the court dismissed the stay applications because D3 and D4 failed to propose or justify conditions to address the reality of multiple non‑parties (consent unlikely), selective invocation of arbitration would cause procedural injustice, risk of duplicative evidence and inconsistent findings, and therefore a stay was inappropriate.
18 Jun 2025

DYNAMIC NAVIGATION SDN BHD CARIMIN ENGINEERING SERVICES SDN. BHD.

Citation

WA-12ANCvC-24-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-12ANCvC-24-03/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Extension of time was refused because the application was not promptly filed, the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, solicitor’s mistake and pending clarification did not justify extension, the appellant had knowledge of the delay, the subject matter of the appeal was either not within arbitration or had become academic due to ongoing arbitration, and the respondent would be prejudiced; accordingly Enclosure 3 was dismissed and the appeal struck out with costs of RM3,000 ordered.
11 Apr 2025

1. ) PESTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 2. ) PESTECH INTERNATIONAL BHD SYARIKAT PEMBENAAN YEOH TIONG LAY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-22C-84-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22C-84-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

There existed a prima facie valid arbitration agreement covering the disputes; plaintiffs had actively participated in the consolidated arbitrations and only belatedly challenged jurisdiction, thereby estopping themselves; the issues raised were within the scope of the arbitration clause and not non-arbitrable as contended; accordingly the court must stay proceedings under s10 Arbitration Act 2005 and refuse the plaintiffs' application.
16 Jan 2025

1. ) Dato' Ler Cheng Chye (Pelikuidasi-pelikuidasi Bagi Pustaka Efektif Sdn. Bhd. (Dalam Likuidasi)) 2. ) LUM TUCK CHEONG (PELIKUIDASI-PELIKUIDASI BAGI PUSTAKA EFEKTIF SDN. BHD. (DALAM LIKUIDASI)) 1. ) ATURAN PRISMA SDN BHD 2. ) ABD RAHMAN

Citation

WA-22NCC-378-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-378-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the arbitration agreement in the PAM Contract remains valid and survivable despite Pustaka's liquidation and that the dispute over set-off falls within the arbitration clause; accordingly a mandatory stay under s10 AA 2005 was granted as to the 1st defendant. Proceedings against the 2nd–6th defendants (non-parties to the arbitration) were directed to proceed to trial, with the court exercising case-management to avoid injustice and duplication.
23 Dec 2024

1. ) KHONG YOON LOONG 2. ) AGNES LEE LAI HENG 3. ) NG CHEE SIEW 4. ) IRENE HARTANTO @ TAN HIAN LIE 5. ) CHAN YIK LONG 6. ) HO YEE KARM 7. ) LIU KWAI LIEN 8. ) KONG CHOONG HON 9. ) LIM KA TIN 10. ) JAMAL MOHAMED PADIYATH 11. ) FOONG KIM SEON

Citation

WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCC-627-11/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found a valid, enforceable arbitration agreement existed between the 1st Defendant and the specified plaintiffs, the disputes fell within the clause, and the claims were not excluded from arbitration under s.4 (not contrary to public policy nor incapable of arbitration). Applying the just and convenient approach, the court ordered a stay under s.10 as to the enumerated plaintiffs' claims against the 1st Defendant while allowing the remaining plaintiffs' claims against the 1st Defendant and claims against other defendants to proceed; costs were awarded to the plaintiffs against the 1…
18 Oct 2024

RD RESOURCES SDN. BHD. 1. ) MALAYSIA AIRPORTS SDN. BHD. 2. ) BANK ISLAM MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-58-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-58-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

WA-24C(ARB)-58-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
24 Sept 2024

FIRST COMMERCE SDN BHD 1. ) BIO HARVEST SDN BHD 2. ) SOO SIEW PENG

Citation

BA-22NCC-121-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-121-09/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court granted a mandatory stay under s10 AA 2005 as clause 34.5 of the PAM Contract 2006, incorporated into the LOA, is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement covering the disputes with the First Defendant; the First Defendant had not taken steps in these High Court proceedings that would preclude a stay; the arbitration agreement is not null, void, inoperative or impossible to perform (financial hardship and lack of prior written notice under clause 34.6(a) are insufficient), but claims against the Second Defendant (a non-signatory) fall outside the arbitration clause and shall pr…
28 Aug 2024

1. ) SAMALAJU INDUSTRIES SDN BHD 2. ) CAHYA MATA PHOSPHATE INDUSTRIES SDN BHD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MALAYSIAN PHOSPHATE ADDITIVE (SARAWAK) SDN BHD) MALAYSIAN PHOSPHATE VENTURE SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-17-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-17-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application to refer constitutional questions directly to the Federal Court under section 84 was dismissed because the issues raised (whether minority oppression claims under the Companies Act are non-arbitrable) do not require special or ambiguous constitutional interpretation by the Federal Court, there is no clear statutory prohibition precluding arbitration of such shareholder disputes and the High Court is the appropriate forum to decide these issues (with the plaintiffs free to raise challenges later under section 37 or at the hearing of Enclosure 1).