Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of arbitral award

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2025

PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD SUNGAI LUI CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-538-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-538-04/2025 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held the Final Award resulted from a court-ordered reference under section 24A Courts of Judicature Act and could not properly be enforced under section 38 Arbitration Act; the section 24A procedure for adoption and court supervision had not been followed; independently the subcontract was a total (Ali Baba) subcontract contrary to public policy and void, rendering enforcement improper. Accordingly the appeals were allowed.
18 Aug 2025

LEBAS TECHNOLOGIES SDN. BHD. MALAYSIAN BIO-XCELL SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

WA-24C-182-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24C-182-11/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court held that the Arbitral Tribunal's finding that the performance bond proceeds must be refunded rendered continued retention by the Defendant unconscionable; as a matter of equity the Performance Bond Sum (RM5,346,550.00) is held on constructive trust for the Plaintiff and the Defendant (and its liquidator) is obliged to return the sum with interest; res judicata, estoppel and limitation arguments failed and declaratory relief under s41 was properly granted.
12 Aug 2025

PETROFAC (MALAYSIA-PM304) LIMITED PBJV GROUP SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-41-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-41-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

PBJV failed to establish any serious or material breach of natural justice connected to the making of the Award; the Tribunal acted within its discretionary powers to admit and weigh evidence (including reports and hearsay) and to interpret pleadings in context; the alleged irregularities did not satisfy the high public policy threshold to set aside or refuse enforcement. Consequently OS 2 (setting aside) is dismissed and OS 41 (enforcement) is allowed.
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.
25 Jun 2025

KONSESI KOTA PERMATAMAS SDN BHD 1. ) TECH ART VISION SDN. BHD. 2. ) TECH ART SDN. BHD. (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN)

Citation

WA-28PW-186-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-28PW-186-04/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court held that nunc pro tunc leave under section 486(2) was properly granted because the Official Receiver had effectively refused to conduct or defend the arbitration, continuation of the arbitration and enforcement of the award was in the best interests of the wound-up company and its creditors, ex parte leave was permissible where affected parties had opportunity to apply to set aside, and the OR's purported 'sanctions' to a third party were ineffective; accordingly the application to set aside the NPT Order was dismissed.
10 Mar 2025

PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD SUNGAI LUI CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-57-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-57-08/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found PJZ's challenges amounted to impermissible review/appeal of the arbitrator's factual and evaluative findings; there was no proven 'Ali Baba' illegality, no breach of natural justice regarding the Addendum, and the Arbitrator properly considered termination notices and the evidence on Category 1 and 2 claims; accordingly the Final Award is valid, recognized and enforceable and the application to set aside is dismissed.
10 Mar 2025

SUNGAI LUI CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-37-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-37-06/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court held that PJZ's submissions amount to an appeal on the merits of the arbitrator's decision rather than valid public policy or natural justice grounds; the arbitrator had considered the Addendum, notices and evidence, and there was insufficient proof of any 'Ali Baba' illegality or breach of natural justice. Consequently the Final Award was recognized, binding and enforceable as a judgment and the application to set aside was dismissed.
24 Jan 2025

KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN. BHD. Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-1836-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-1836-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the arbitral tribunal breached the rules of natural justice and failed to make a reasoned award by not addressing the quantification of Claim 1, arguments on waiver/acquiescence/estoppel and the pleaded mitigation issue; those failures engaged s33(3)/Art34(3) and amounted to a conflict with Malaysian public policy under s37 AA, warranting setting aside of the arbitral award and dismissal of the enforcement application.
9 Jul 2024

TSS BBW

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-58-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-58-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court exercised its discretion under section 37(7), found the Defendant did not justify an order for security because there was no proven prejudice or risk of dissipation and the Plaintiff's financial statements showed the Plaintiff was solvent; accordingly the application for security (Enclosure 12) was dismissed with costs.
10 Jun 2024

ROBINSON PLANNER COMPANY LIMITED TMF TRUST LABUAN LIMITED

Citation

WA-24NCC(ARB)-41-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24NCC(ARB)-41-12/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The identity of authorised persons was not an agreed pleaded issue submitted to the tribunal; the tribunal considered the parties' arguments and reasonably concluded the impugned instructions originated from third‑party fraudsters, not RPL or its authorised agent; there was no breach of natural justice of a material kind and TMF failed to meet the high public policy threshold under s37 AA 2005, therefore the setting‑aside application is dismissed and the Partial Award is recognised and enforced under s38 AA 2005.