TECH ART Sdn Bhd. (DALAM PENGGULUNGAN)

On the court record

A company in liquidation as a party to the setting aside and enforcement of a final arbitral award, and to the question of leave to proceed under section 486(2) of the Companies Act 2016.

Tech Art Sdn Bhd (in liquidation) appears in the corpus in arbitration-award and winding-up proceedings concerning a final arbitral award and the conduct of enforcement while the company is in liquidation.

Two connected matters were originating summonses heard together, one to set aside a final arbitral award and the other to enforce the same final award. This pairing reflects the standard structure of arbitration-award litigation, in which the losing party seeks to set aside the award on the limited statutory grounds while the successful party seeks recognition and enforcement, the court determining both in a single exercise.

A third matter engaged the interaction between arbitration enforcement and insolvency. It concerned an application to proceed with arbitration proceedings and to enforce a final award, engaging section 486(2) of the Companies Act 2016 and the pre-condition to a grant of leave, in circumstances where the liquidator refused to act for the company. The court considered the liquidator's sanction to act, whether a nunc pro tunc leave, that is, leave granted with retrospective effect, was valid, and whether there was a breach of natural justice to the applicant where a previous nunc pro tunc leave application had been made ex parte.

Together the proceedings show a company in liquidation as a party to the setting aside and enforcement of an arbitral award, and to the distinct question of how leave to proceed operates when a company is in winding up and its liquidator declines to act. The narrative reports the statutory provisions and the issues the court identified, and states outcomes only as recorded, without expressing any view on the merits of the arbitral award or the underlying construction or commercial dispute. The company's position as a party in liquidation across all three matters shows how the ordinary structure of arbitration-award litigation is complicated once a winding up supervenes and the liquidator's willingness to act becomes decisive.