Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of award

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2025

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

Citation

W-02(C)(A)-1837-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

C
Case number

W-02(C)(A)-1837-09/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court: the Tribunal's failure to address material, specifically pleaded issues (quantification of Claim 1, the three issues on COC/waiver/acquiescence/estoppel, and mitigation) and its failure to explain how it arrived at the quantitative award amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice and to a failure to make a reasoned award under the parties' agreed arbitration rules, rendering the Final Award contrary to Malaysian public policy and justifying its setting aside and refusal of enforcement.
16 Dec 2024

DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR SRI TINGGI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court set aside the arbitral award because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian legal principles (including stare decisis), misapplied the concept of public policy, introduced novel legal reasoning without affording the parties an opportunity to address it (breach of natural justice under s20 AA 2005), and thereby exceeded the scope of the submission to arbitration; these defects collectively met the statutory grounds in ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) AA 2005 for setting aside the award.
16 Dec 2024

DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR SRI TINGGI SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-30-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court set aside the arbitral award because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian law and the doctrine of stare decisis, misapplied the concept of public policy, introduced novel legal conclusions without giving the parties an opportunity to address them (breach of natural justice under s20 and s37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005), and decided issues outside the scope of the submission to arbitration (excess of jurisdiction), thereby conflicting with the public policy of Malaysia under s37 and warranting setting aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2…
16 Dec 2024

SRI TINGGI SDN BHD DATUK BANDAR KUALA LUMPUR

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-16-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-16-03/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Award was set aside because the arbitrator disregarded binding Malaysian precedent and misunderstood public policy, introduced unforeseen legal reasoning without giving the parties an opportunity to address those points (breach of natural justice under s20 and s37(2)(b)(ii) AA 2005), and decided issues beyond the scope of the arbitration (excess of jurisdiction), thereby rendering the Award in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia and liable to be set aside under ss 37(1)(a)(iii), 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005.
29 Nov 2024

Multazam Development Sdn Bhd FGV Plantations (MALAYSIA) Sdn. Bhd. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai FELDA Global Ventures Plantations (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.)

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-28-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-28-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The application for security under section 37(7) Arbitration Act 2005 was dismissed because on balancing prejudice the risk to MDSB of being denied an opportunity to be heard outweighed FGV's risk of non-enforcement; impecuniosity alone does not justify ordering security and FGV had knowledge of MDSB's financial position such that ordering security would be inequitable.
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 s37(7) Arbitration Act 2005, found no proven prejudice to the defendant nor any evidence the plaintiff would dissipate assets, and found the plaintiff solvent on the evidence; accordingly the court refused to order security for the award and dismissed the application (Enclosure 12) with costs.
29 Dec 2022

SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED GUMUSUT-KAKAP SEMI-FLOATING PRODUCTION SYSTEM (LABUAN) LIMITED

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-10-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-10-05/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court held GKL failed to prove breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with Malaysian public policy. Tribunal acted within its procedural authority; factual findings and quantification (including sampling/extrapolation, common costs, accommodation vessel, set-off and limitation clause construction) were matters for the Tribunal and are not reviewable. s.30(4A) AA was not applicable to the arbitration. Applications were dismissed and costs awarded to SSPC.
29 Dec 2022

GUMUSUT-KAKAP SEMI-FLOATING PRODUCTION SYSTEM (LABUAN) LIMITED SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

WA-24C(ARB)-18-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

WA-24C(ARB)-18-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

GKL failed to prove breach of natural justice, excess of jurisdiction or conflict with Malaysian public policy. The Tribunal acted within its procedural discretion, parties had opportunities to present evidence and accepted or could have accepted alternatives (including tribunal expert). Findings of fact and contract construction by the Tribunal are final and not reviewable; s.30(4A) inapplicable to these proceedings; alleged double recovery and misapplication of limitation clause were addressed by the Tribunal. Consequently both the setting-aside and challenge to registration/enforcement app…
26 Jul 2022

B. Braun Medical Industries Sdn Bhd 1. ) Mugunthan a/l Vadiveloo 2. ) MAHKAMAH PERUSAHAAN MALAYSIA

Citation

AA-25-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-25-2-01/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court dismissed the judicial review because the Industrial Court correctly found the MSS was presented alongside a retrenchment package which vitiated voluntariness and amounted to dismissal, the applicant failed to prove actual redundancy or the bona fides of restructuring, and the Industrial Court’s factual findings based on credibility were not plainly wrong.
28 Dec 2020

1. ) BA-22C(ARB)-4-05/2020 LOW KOH HWA @ LOW KOK HWA (NRIC No.: 440923-10-5249) [practising as sole Chartered Architect at LOW & ASSOCIATES (Registered Architect No.: A/L 78)] 2. ) BA-24C-87-09/2020 PERSATUAN KANAK-KANAK SPASTIK SELANGOR &

Citation

BA-22C(ARB)-4-05/2020 & BA-24C-87-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

ARB
Case number

BA-22C(ARB)-4-05/2020 & BA-24C-87-09/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The High Court set aside the entire arbitral award: the arbitrator failed to make full and timely disclosure of a relationship with the Association's material witness, creating a real possibility of bias and a perception of lack of independence under s14(1)-(2) AA, and the arbitrator exceeded the submission by deciding an unpleaded overpayment; the breaches were material to the outcome and severance under s37(3) was not practicable, so the award must be set aside and enforcement dismissed.