Arbitration
21 cases · November 2017 to December 2025
Case Volume by Year
1 17
2 18
2 19
1 20
15 25
2017–2025
Key Issues & Sub-Topics
Setting aside — Enforcement — Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal — Scope of submission to arbitration — “New difference” — Whether tribunal exceeded jurisdiction — Whether dispute contemplated by parties — Arbitration Act 2005, s 37(1)(a)(iv), (v) 2 Setting aside — Public policy — Illegality — Regulatory non-compliance — Whether award in conflict with public policy of Malaysia — Threshold — Arbitration Act 2005, s 37(1)(b)(ii), s 37(2) 2 to set aside award — non-recognition of award — grounds enumerated in s.37 are exhaustive and the court cannot set aside an award for reasons other than those that are listed– the court do not sit as an appellate court — the merits before the arbitral tribunal are not open to scrutiny — section 37 of the Arbitration Act -Section 39 of the Arbitration Act Arbitration Law — Waiver — Estoppel — Not specifically pleaded in claim — relied on during course of proceeding — can be extended by conducts of parties — can be considered by the arbitrator based on the facts of the case — accepting the application for extension — not rejecting the application 2 Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA”) — Award — Recognition and enforcement of award 2 Respondent was allegedly in breach of express and implied terms of contract in respect of supply of cost-plus valves and that Appellant suffered substantial loss and damages — Whether respondent was in breach of express terms of contract — Whether valves supplied did not correspond with its description and were not of merchantable quality — Whether Appellant suffered substantial loss and damage in respect of valves which had been replaced 2 Whether breach of rules of natural justice occurred during arbitration and in connection with making award — Arbitral Tribunal addressed on issue not raised or addressed by parties — Tribunal failed to address issues specifically raised in the pleadings by the parties — Whether breach of natural justice — Whether award was in conflict with public policy of Malaysia 2 Stay of court proceedings — Arbitration Agreement — Adoption by liquidator — Whether Director General of Insolvency required to adopt arbitration agreement under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Distinction between individual bankruptcy and corporate winding-up — Mandatory stay under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed — Doctrine of separability — Parties Autonomy — Survival of arbitration clause despite winding-up of company — Arbitrability — Dispute arising from pre-insolvency contractual rights — Whether arbitrable post-liquidation — Public policy considerations — Contrast with insolvency-specific remedies 1 Court-ordered reference to arbitration — Whether different from submission to arbitration — Whether award obtained pursuant to a court-ordered reference to arbitration may be enforced under the Arbitration Act — Whether enforcement should have been pursuant to section 24A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 1 Stay of proceedings — Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005 — Arbitration clause in AFC Champions League Competition Regulations — Dispute “in connection with the Competition” — Meaning of “Competition” — Claim for unpaid prize money, subsidies and expenses — Liability and quantum admitted — Crystallised debt — Non-payment due to banking compliance and extraterritorial sanctions — No dispute relating to competition — No nexus between claim and arbitration clause — Arbitration clause inapplicable — Court entitled to determine scope of arbitration agreement — Full merits test 1 Stay of proceedings — Application for stay under section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Mandatory nature of stay where valid arbitration agreement exists — Principles of "steps in proceedings". 1 Agreement — Arbitration or litigation — Construction of arbitration clause in light of phrase “legal proceedings” used — Whether word ‘shall’ used in arbitration clause connoted reference to arbitration as mandatory and not optional — Whether parties original intention to refer dispute to arbitration abandoned by supplemental agreements — Whether failure to give a notice of arbitration would be a lack of procedural legitimacy — Whether filing of the Memorandum of Appearance a step in the proceedings — Whether parties estopped from referring dispute to arbitration under Arbitration Act 2005 s 10(1)(a) 1 Stay of Proceedings — Application for stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration — Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Prima facie arbitrable dispute — Threshold for granting stay — Mandatory reference to arbitration 1 Stay of proceedings — Application under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Statutory requirements for a stay 1 Contemplated arbitration proceedings — Injunctive reliefs — Interim measures by High Court — Applicable test — Whether and the extent to which an applicant must show a serious issue to be tried — Whether the Defendant’s arguments are within the purview of arbitration — Sections 11 and 19J of the Arbitration Act 2005 1 Agreement — Option clause — Whether clause offering choice between litigation and arbitration constitutes a binding arbitration agreement under s.10 Arbitration Act 2005. 1 Validity of agreement — Clause lacking express provisions on seat, number of arbitrators, and appointment process — Whether such omission renders arbitration agreement null, void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. 1 Kompetenz-kompetenz — Arbitral tribunal’s authority to rule on its own jurisdiction — Applicability of s.18 Arbitration Act 2005 -Test under s.10 whether prima facie or full merits test. 1 Construction of arbitration clause — Interpretation of word “may” — Whether it creates an enforceable obligation to arbitrate once a party elects to do so 1 Arbitral Tribunal — Expert evidence rejected by the Tribunal — Whether Tribunal bound to accept expert evidence — Whether Tribunal must give cogent reason in accepting or rejecting expert evidence — Whether s 33(3)(b) of AA is breached. 1 Arbitral Tribunal — Expert evidence rejected by the Tribunal — Whether Tribunal bound to accept expert evidence — Whether Tribunal must give cogent reason in accepting or rejecting expert evidence — Whether s 33(3)(b) of AA is breached 1
+ 6 more
Setting aside — Enforcement — Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal — Scope of submission to arbitration — “New difference” — Whether tribunal exceeded jurisdiction — Whether dispute contemplated by parties — Arbitration Act 2005, s 37(1)(a)(iv), (v) 2 cases
Setting aside — Public policy — Illegality — Regulatory non-compliance — Whether award in conflict with public policy of Malaysia — Threshold — Arbitration Act 2005, s 37(1)(b)(ii), s 37(2) 2 cases
to set aside award — non-recognition of award — grounds enumerated in s.37 are exhaustive and the court cannot set aside an award for reasons other than those that are listed– the court do not sit as an appellate court — the merits before the arbitral tribunal are not open to scrutiny — section 37 of the Arbitration Act -Section 39 of the Arbitration Act Arbitration Law — Waiver — Estoppel — Not specifically pleaded in claim — relied on during course of proceeding — can be extended by conducts of parties — can be considered by the arbitrator based on the facts of the case — accepting the application for extension — not rejecting the application 2 cases
Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA”) — Award — Recognition and enforcement of award 2 cases
Respondent was allegedly in breach of express and implied terms of contract in respect of supply of cost-plus valves and that Appellant suffered substantial loss and damages — Whether respondent was in breach of express terms of contract — Whether valves supplied did not correspond with its description and were not of merchantable quality — Whether Appellant suffered substantial loss and damage in respect of valves which had been replaced 2 cases
Whether breach of rules of natural justice occurred during arbitration and in connection with making award — Arbitral Tribunal addressed on issue not raised or addressed by parties — Tribunal failed to address issues specifically raised in the pleadings by the parties — Whether breach of natural justice — Whether award was in conflict with public policy of Malaysia 2 cases
Stay of court proceedings — Arbitration Agreement — Adoption by liquidator — Whether Director General of Insolvency required to adopt arbitration agreement under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Distinction between individual bankruptcy and corporate winding-up — Mandatory stay under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether arbitration agreement inoperative or incapable of being performed — Doctrine of separability — Parties Autonomy — Survival of arbitration clause despite winding-up of company — Arbitrability — Dispute arising from pre-insolvency contractual rights — Whether arbitrable post-liquidation — Public policy considerations — Contrast with insolvency-specific remedies 1 case
Court-ordered reference to arbitration — Whether different from submission to arbitration — Whether award obtained pursuant to a court-ordered reference to arbitration may be enforced under the Arbitration Act — Whether enforcement should have been pursuant to section 24A of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 1 case
Stay of proceedings — Section 10 Arbitration Act 2005 — Arbitration clause in AFC Champions League Competition Regulations — Dispute “in connection with the Competition” — Meaning of “Competition” — Claim for unpaid prize money, subsidies and expenses — Liability and quantum admitted — Crystallised debt — Non-payment due to banking compliance and extraterritorial sanctions — No dispute relating to competition — No nexus between claim and arbitration clause — Arbitration clause inapplicable — Court entitled to determine scope of arbitration agreement — Full merits test 1 case
Stay of proceedings — Application for stay under section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Mandatory nature of stay where valid arbitration agreement exists — Principles of "steps in proceedings". 1 case
Agreement — Arbitration or litigation — Construction of arbitration clause in light of phrase “legal proceedings” used — Whether word ‘shall’ used in arbitration clause connoted reference to arbitration as mandatory and not optional — Whether parties original intention to refer dispute to arbitration abandoned by supplemental agreements — Whether failure to give a notice of arbitration would be a lack of procedural legitimacy — Whether filing of the Memorandum of Appearance a step in the proceedings — Whether parties estopped from referring dispute to arbitration under Arbitration Act 2005 s 10(1)(a) 1 case
Stay of Proceedings — Application for stay of proceedings pending reference to arbitration — Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Prima facie arbitrable dispute — Threshold for granting stay — Mandatory reference to arbitration 1 case
Stay of proceedings — Application under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Statutory requirements for a stay 1 case
Contemplated arbitration proceedings — Injunctive reliefs — Interim measures by High Court — Applicable test — Whether and the extent to which an applicant must show a serious issue to be tried — Whether the Defendant’s arguments are within the purview of arbitration — Sections 11 and 19J of the Arbitration Act 2005 1 case
Agreement — Option clause — Whether clause offering choice between litigation and arbitration constitutes a binding arbitration agreement under s.10 Arbitration Act 2005. 1 case
Validity of agreement — Clause lacking express provisions on seat, number of arbitrators, and appointment process — Whether such omission renders arbitration agreement null, void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. 1 case
Construction of arbitration clause — Interpretation of word “may” — Whether it creates an enforceable obligation to arbitrate once a party elects to do so 1 case
Arbitral Tribunal — Expert evidence rejected by the Tribunal — Whether Tribunal bound to accept expert evidence — Whether Tribunal must give cogent reason in accepting or rejecting expert evidence — Whether s 33(3)(b) of AA is breached. 1 case
Arbitral Tribunal — Expert evidence rejected by the Tribunal — Whether Tribunal bound to accept expert evidence — Whether Tribunal must give cogent reason in accepting or rejecting expert evidence — Whether s 33(3)(b) of AA is breached 1 case
Setting aside — Termination of subcontract — Dispute referred to arbitration — Arbitrator, an engineer knowledgeable in construction industry — Arbitrator ruled that the termination was unlawful and ordered payment of costs for completed work and loss of profit — Whether the threshold to set aside an arbitration award under section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 is ‘very low’ — Whether the said arbitrator could rely on own knowledge and expertise arriving at the decision — Whether the arbitrator upon relying to his own knowledge and expertise breached the natural justice within the meaning of section 37(1)(b)(ii) read together with subsection 2(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether the precept of breach to natural justice extends to the Arbitrator applying his own knowledge and expertise 1 case
Award — Recognition and enforcement application by way of entry as High Court judgment — Section 2, 38 and 39 of Arbitration Act 2005 — Rule 8, Order 69 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Whether such entry relates only to the disposition and not entire award — Whether entry of entire award would undermine the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings 1 case
Arbitration Act 2005, s10 — whether the arbitration agreement or the proceedings in court obtained despite the agreement to arbitrate took precedence — can judgment in default be sustained when party is bound by valid arbitration clause — whether court should consider the merits or existence of disputes raised by defendant in hearing the application to set aside JID where parties are bound by valid arbitration clause — whether court could intervene dispute between parties who had agreed on arbitration clause 1 case
Arbitral award — Application to set aside — Section 37 of Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether award was made in excess of jurisdiction — Whether award was in breach of public policy and/or natural justice — Whether the Court of Appeal ruling that the test for the intervention of the court under s. 37 Arbitration Act 2005 as “one where the award suffer from patent injustice and/or where the award is manifestly unlawful and unconscionable” is correct 1 case
Arbitral Proceedings — Preliminary Objection — Issue on international or domestic arbitration — Final award — Question of Law — Domestic International Arbitration — Whether the arbitration is an international arbitration or a domestic arbitration — Court determined what constituted an international arbitration within meaning of Section 2 of Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether the Act or Malaysian Law recognizes a domestic international arbitration given that the phrase “domestic international arbitration” is found in Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether section 42 of the Arbitration Act automatically applies to an arbitration governed by the laws of Malaysia notwithstanding that one or more parties to the arbitration may be foreign — Whether decision of Court of Appeal in Ajwa For Food Industries Co (Migop), Egypt v Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd & another appeal [2011] MLJU 1537 is correct — Arbitration Act 2005 ss 2 & 42 1 case
Key Statutes
Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)
cited in 5 cases Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 2 cases Commercial
Arbitration Act 1984
cited in 1 case UK Arbitration Act 1996
cited in 1 case Singapore
Arbitration Act 2001
cited in 1 case Singapore International Arbitration Act
1994
cited in 1 case Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance
cited in 1 case National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 1 case Rules of Court 2012
cited in 1 case English Arbitration Act 1950
cited in 1 case Insolvency Act
1986
cited in 1 case Companies Act
2016
cited in 1 case Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
cited in 1 case Insolvency Act 1967 (Cap 360)
cited in 1 case Courts of Judicature Act
1964
cited in 1 case Court Distribution
Key People & Firms
Top Judges
Top Firms
Cases
n-02imncvc-1761-10-2024
1. ) HASHIM BIN ABD RAZAK 2. ) MAIMON BINTI ABDUL RAZAK 3. ) ZAINAH MAHANI BINTI ABD RAZAK v PEMBINAAN PD JAYA SDN. BHD. (Dalam Likuidasi)
14 December 2025
MYCOA
w-02ca-538-04-2025
PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD v SUNGAI LUI CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
7 December 2025
MYCOA
wa-24nccarb-40-12-2024
MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD v THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD
18 November 2025
MYHC
wa-24nccarb-7-03-2025
THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD v MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD
18 November 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-20-01-2024
PERSEPOLIS ATHLETIC AND CULTURAL COMPANY v KONFEDERASI BOLA SEPAK ASIA (ASIAN FOOTBALL CONFEDERATION)
4 November 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-844-12-2024
1. ) YEONG MUN FUNG 2. ) TOO WAI HOONG 3. ) LEONG CHUNG CHEN 4. ) ON YONG WEE 5. ) YONG SAI KENG v HOO VOON HIM
27 October 2025
MYHC
pa-22ncvc-86-06-2025
TOTAL IFM SDN. BHD. v NEFIN SOLAR ASSET SDN. BHD.
21 October 2025
MYHC
wa-12ancc-88-10-2024
YES TRAVEL & HOLIDAYS SDN. BHD. v 1. ) MIKI TRAVEL (HONG KONG) LIMITED 2. ) MIKI TRAVEL SDN BHD
9 October 2025
MYHC
wa-22ncc-190-04-2023
EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF MALAYSIA BERHAD v Lim Yaw Boon
29 September 2025
MYHC
wa-24nccarb-17-06-2025
AKIRAN SERVICES SDN BHD v KPJ PERDANA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD
27 August 2025
MYHC
wa-24nccarb-9-03-2025
PERDANA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN. BHD. v AKIRAN SERVICES SDN. BHD.
27 August 2025
MYHC
ba-24ncc-15-02-2025
SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SDN BHD v Hasdiana Binti Hashim
27 March 2025
MYHC
a-02imc-1587-09-2024
SETIA AWAN MANAGEMENT SDN BHD v SPNB ASPIRASI SDN BHD
27 February 2025
MYCOA
w-02ca-1836-09-2022
KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN. BHD. v Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
23 January 2025
MYCOA
w-02ca-1837-09-2022
KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD v Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
23 January 2025
MYCOA
02f-26-03-2019w
PANCARAN PRIMA SDN BHD v ISWARABENA SDN BHD
26 August 2020
MYFC
02f-115-12-2018w
SIEMENS INDUSTRY SOFTWARE GMBH & CO. KG (GERMANY) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INNOTEC GMBH) v 1. JACOB AND TORALF CONSULTING SDN BHD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INNOTEC ASIA PACIFIC SDN BHD (MALAYSIA) 2. JACOB S/O GEORGE (MALAYSIA) 3. THOMAS GEORGE (MALAYSIA) 4. PEC KONSULT SDN BHD (MALAYSIA) 5. TORALF MUELLER
27 November 2019
MYFC
03-2-11-2018b
Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v Juang Setia Sdn Bhd
18 September 2019
MYFC
02f-8-02-2018-w
1. Tan Sri Dato' Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun 2. Central Malaysian Properties Sdn Bhd v 1. Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 2. Jan De Nul Group (Sofidra S.A)
30 October 2018
MYFC
application-no-02f-7-02-2018w
JAN DE NUL (MALAYSIA SDN BHD) & 1 LAGI v VINCENT TAN CHEE YIOUN & 1 LAGI
30 October 2018
MYFC
02-19-04-2016
1. Far East Holdings Bhd 2. Kampong Aur Oil Palm Sdn Bhd ... Appellants v Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang ... Respondent
14 November 2017
MYFC