Jacob Goldie S.S. Chew

On the court record

The firm's record illustrates the limited grounds under section 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 on which a court may set aside an arbitral award, reflecting the narrow scope of curial intervention that preserves the finality of arbitration.

Jacob Goldie S.S. Chew appears in the corpus as counsel in arbitration, commercial and road-accident litigation, argued in the High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) and the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) in both English and Bahasa Malaysia.

One matter concerned the setting aside of an arbitral award. Acting for the defendant in litigation involving MRCB Builders Sdn Bhd, the firm appeared where a party applied to set aside an arbitration award under sections 37(1)(a) and 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005, the provisions that permit a court to set aside an award on limited grounds such as the incapacity of a party, the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, a denial of a fair opportunity to present a case, or a conflict with public policy. Such an application tests the narrow scope of curial intervention in an arbitral award, which the courts guard closely in order to preserve the finality of arbitration.

The firm also appeared in commercial litigation, acting for respondents in an appeal concerning a settlement agreement and supplementary agreement met by allegations of fraud, coercion, intimidation and undue influence, where much of the argument turned on compliance with the filing requirements of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994 and the consequences of a failure to file a memorandum of appeal.

In road-accident work the firm acted for an appellant in an appeal, argued in Malay, concerning only the quantum of damages awarded in a running-down claim, where the court maintained the award made by the Sessions Court. The firm's record is a commercial-litigation practice engaging the limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award, the enforcement of settlement agreements, and the appellate review of damages in road-accident claims, and it reflects a chambers comfortable across both the arbitral and the curial dimensions of dispute resolution, and equally at home resisting a challenge to an award as pressing an appeal on quantum in a running-down claim.