Arbitration

127 cases · August 2017 to June 2026

Overview

Arbitration appears in 127 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026).

In this practice area

Arbitration collects the judgments in which the courts support, supervise or give effect to arbitral dispute resolution under the Arbitration Act 2005. The reasoning concerns the stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration, the enforcement and setting aside of awards, and the boundary between the arbitral process and the courts' own jurisdiction.

The stay of proceedings is a central subject. Judgments examine the mandatory stay under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and Article 8 of the Model Law, and the approach where a debt subject to an arbitration clause is met by a winding-up petition — the "Fortuna injunction" and the threshold for a stay, dismissal or injunction in that situation. The courts consider how the arbitration legislation interacts with the winding-up jurisdiction, drawing on comparative authority such as Salford Estates and the Privy Council's decision in Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda.

Enforcement forms a second strand. Judgments address the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award registered in the seat court under the New York Convention, and the limited grounds on which an award may be resisted or set aside. The purpose and object of the Arbitration Act 2005 — to give effect to the parties' choice of arbitration with minimal curial interference — frames the analysis, together with the principles of statutory interpretation under section 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1976 that guide the reading of the Act.

The cases sit predominantly in the High Court, with appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court on the reach of the arbitration legislation. As a whole the area shows how the Malaysian courts hold parties to their agreement to arbitrate — staying litigation and enforcing awards — while retaining the narrow supervisory role the Act preserves. The recurring interface with the winding-up jurisdiction shows how often a party invokes insolvency to sidestep an agreed arbitration, and how the courts guard the arbitral bargain against it.

Case Volume by Year

2
17
2
18
3
19
1
20
1
21
2
23
23
24
63
25
30
26
2017–2026

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 — Application under s 10 Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether proceedings should be stayed and parties referred to arbitration — Mandatory nature of stay where arbitration agreement exists and no step taken in proceedings 1 Arbitration agreement — Incorporation by reference — Whether reference in letter of appointment to “Conditions of Engagement, Rule 29, 3rd Schedule of Architect Rules 1996” sufficient to incorporate arbitration clause — Section 9(5) Arbitration Act 2005 1 Arbitration clause — Incorporation of standard terms — Whether specific reference to arbitration clause necessary — Applicability of Ajwa for Food Industries Co (MIGOP), Egypt v Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd 1 Kompetenze-kompetenz — Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal — Whether questions concerning validity, scope and applicability of arbitration clause to be determined primarily by arbitral tribunal — Section 18(1) Arbitration Act 2005 1 Separability doctrine — Whether arbitration clause survives challenge to validity of underlying contract — Whether alleged invalidity of letter of appointment affected arbitration clause — Section 18(2) Arbitration Act 2005 1 Stay application — “Before taking any other step in proceedings” — Whether entry of appearance and attendance at e-review constituted step inconsistent with right to arbitrate — Section 10(1) Arbitration Act 2005 1 Architectural consultancy agreement — Architects Rules 1996 — Whether Conditions of Engagement and arbitration clause applied despite absence of prescribed Memorandum of Agreement under Rule 29 1 Arbitration agreement — Null and void — Inoperative — Incapable of being performed — Whether any statutory exception under s 10(1) established on affidavit evidence 1 Scope of arbitration agreement — Tortious claims — Whether claims framed in professional negligence and wrongful grant of extension of time fell within scope of arbitration clause arising from architectural consultancy services 1 Construction disputes — Architect’s alleged wrongful grant of extensions of time — Claim for loss of liquidated damages — Whether disputes arising from performance of architectural functions arbitrable 1 Interim relief — Performance Bonds — Construction contract involving Government infrastructure project — Application under s 11 Arbitration Act 2005 to restrain beneficiary from making and receiving payment under Performance Bonds pending arbitration — Whether court had jurisdiction notwithstanding Government Proceedings Act 1956 — Whether contractual dispute concerning Design Guarantee Bond established unconscionability sufficient to restrain autonomous Performance Bonds — Held, although serious issues existed for arbitration, no prima facie unconscionability was shown, damages remained an adequate remedy and balance of convenience favoured preservation of contractual security — Application dismissed. 1 Setting aside arbitral award — Application under sections 37(1)(a)(v) and 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Excess of jurisdiction — Public policy — Whether arbitral tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by finding that landlord had affirmed lease and waived tenant’s repudiatory breach — Whether findings on waiver, affirmation, election and effect of non-waiver clause were matters falling within scope of parties’ pleadings and submissions — Whether tribunal’s reliance on foreign authorities concerning waiver and affirmation constituted decision beyond parties’ contemplation — Whether alleged failure to expressly consider contractual non-waiver clause amounted to breach of natural justice — Whether breach of natural justice ground could be raised through submissions when not pleaded in originating summons or affidavits — Whether actual or real prejudice established — Whether award rested on multiple independent findings supporting affirmation of lease — Limited curial intervention — Finality of arbitral awards 1 Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's OS despite the arbitration agreement in Clause 34.5 of the PAM Contract 2006 — Whether the Court can decide the interpretation of Clause 30.10 and whether a valid dispute exists — Whether the Plaintiff’s claim that there is no dispute allows this Court to exercise jurisdiction — Whether the Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating the matter after the Court of Appeal’s judgment directing arbitration — Whether the Court of Appeal’s prior decision precludes this Court from hearing the OS — Whether the issue of dispute under Clause 30.10 is for the arbitrator to decide. 1 Interim measures — Injunction pending arbitration — Application to restrain receivers and managers — Whether court may restrain secured creditor’s enforcement pending arbitration — Section 11 Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether s 11 displaces American Cyanamid principles — Whether injunction preserves or alters status quo — Whether interference with receivership justified 1 + 26 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

wa-24nccarb-40-12-2024 MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD v THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD
18 November 2025
wa-24nccarb-7-03-2025 THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD v MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD
18 November 2025

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

wa-24nccarb-40-12-2024 MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD v THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD
18 November 2025
wa-24nccarb-7-03-2025 THIEN HONG MACHINERY (M) SDN BHD v MRCB BUILDERS SDN BHD
18 November 2025

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

wa-24nccarb-17-06-2025 AKIRAN SERVICES SDN BHD v KPJ PERDANA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN BHD
27 August 2025
wa-24nccarb-9-03-2025 PERDANA SPECIALIST HOSPITAL SDN. BHD. v AKIRAN SERVICES SDN. BHD.
27 August 2025

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

w-02ca-1836-09-2022 KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN. BHD. v Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
23 January 2025
w-02ca-1837-09-2022 KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD v Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
23 January 2025

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

w-02ca-1836-09-2022 KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN. BHD. v Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
23 January 2025
w-02ca-1837-09-2022 KEBABANGAN PETROLEUM OPERATING COMPANY SDN BHD v Malaysia Marine And Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
23 January 2025

Stay of court proceedings — Application under s 10 Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether proceedings should be stayed and parties referred to arbitration — Mandatory nature of stay where arbitration agreement exists and no step taken in proceedings 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Arbitration agreement — Incorporation by reference — Whether reference in letter of appointment to “Conditions of Engagement, Rule 29, 3rd Schedule of Architect Rules 1996” sufficient to incorporate arbitration clause — Section 9(5) Arbitration Act 2005 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Kompetenze-kompetenz — Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal — Whether questions concerning validity, scope and applicability of arbitration clause to be determined primarily by arbitral tribunal — Section 18(1) Arbitration Act 2005 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Separability doctrine — Whether arbitration clause survives challenge to validity of underlying contract — Whether alleged invalidity of letter of appointment affected arbitration clause — Section 18(2) Arbitration Act 2005 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Stay application — “Before taking any other step in proceedings” — Whether entry of appearance and attendance at e-review constituted step inconsistent with right to arbitrate — Section 10(1) Arbitration Act 2005 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Architectural consultancy agreement — Architects Rules 1996 — Whether Conditions of Engagement and arbitration clause applied despite absence of prescribed Memorandum of Agreement under Rule 29 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Arbitration agreement — Null and void — Inoperative — Incapable of being performed — Whether any statutory exception under s 10(1) established on affidavit evidence 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Scope of arbitration agreement — Tortious claims — Whether claims framed in professional negligence and wrongful grant of extension of time fell within scope of arbitration clause arising from architectural consultancy services 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Construction disputes — Architect’s alleged wrongful grant of extensions of time — Claim for loss of liquidated damages — Whether disputes arising from performance of architectural functions arbitrable 1 case

ma-22c-1-01-2026 Webest Sdn Bhd v Arkitek AAP
28 May 2026

Interim relief — Performance Bonds — Construction contract involving Government infrastructure project — Application under s 11 Arbitration Act 2005 to restrain beneficiary from making and receiving payment under Performance Bonds pending arbitration — Whether court had jurisdiction notwithstanding Government Proceedings Act 1956 — Whether contractual dispute concerning Design Guarantee Bond established unconscionability sufficient to restrain autonomous Performance Bonds — Held, although serious issues existed for arbitration, no prima facie unconscionability was shown, damages remained an adequate remedy and balance of convenience favoured preservation of contractual security — Application dismissed. 1 case

ca-24c-1-04-2026 1. ) AHMAD ZAKI RESOURCES BERHAD 2. ) AHMAD ZAKI SDN BHD v KERAJAAN MALAYSIA
6 May 2026

Setting aside arbitral award — Application under sections 37(1)(a)(v) and 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act 2005 — Excess of jurisdiction — Public policy — Whether arbitral tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by finding that landlord had affirmed lease and waived tenant’s repudiatory breach — Whether findings on waiver, affirmation, election and effect of non-waiver clause were matters falling within scope of parties’ pleadings and submissions — Whether tribunal’s reliance on foreign authorities concerning waiver and affirmation constituted decision beyond parties’ contemplation — Whether alleged failure to expressly consider contractual non-waiver clause amounted to breach of natural justice — Whether breach of natural justice ground could be raised through submissions when not pleaded in originating summons or affidavits — Whether actual or real prejudice established — Whether award rested on multiple independent findings supporting affirmation of lease — Limited curial intervention — Finality of arbitral awards 1 case

wa-24carb-50-11-2025 DIAN KIARA SDN. BHD. v GCH RETAIL (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD.
12 April 2026

Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff's OS despite the arbitration agreement in Clause 34.5 of the PAM Contract 2006 — Whether the Court can decide the interpretation of Clause 30.10 and whether a valid dispute exists — Whether the Plaintiff’s claim that there is no dispute allows this Court to exercise jurisdiction — Whether the Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating the matter after the Court of Appeal’s judgment directing arbitration — Whether the Court of Appeal’s prior decision precludes this Court from hearing the OS — Whether the issue of dispute under Clause 30.10 is for the arbitrator to decide. 1 case

wa-24c-178-10-2025 ONE AMERIN RESIDENCE SDN BHD v RAGAWANG CORPORATION SDN BHD
2 March 2026

Interim measures — Injunction pending arbitration — Application to restrain receivers and managers — Whether court may restrain secured creditor’s enforcement pending arbitration — Section 11 Arbitration Act 2005 — Whether s 11 displaces American Cyanamid principles — Whether injunction preserves or alters status quo — Whether interference with receivership justified 1 case

wa-24nccarb-26-08-2025 PETRONAS DAGANGAN BERHAD v 1. ) INNATE SYNERGY SDN. BHD. (PENERIMA DAN PENGURUS DILANTIK) 2. ) CIMB ISLAMIC BANK BERHAD 3. ) VICTOR SAW SENG KEE (DARIPADA PWC CORPORATE BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING SERVICES PLT YANG BERTINDAK SEBAGAI PENERIMA DAN PENGURUS BAGI DEFENDAN PERTAMA) 4. ) SURENDRAN A/L SATHYA SEELAN (DARIPADA PWC CORPORATE BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING SERVICES PLT YANG BERTINDAK SEBAGAI PENERIMA DAN PENGURUS BAGI DEFENDAN PERTAMA)
26 January 2026

Scope of arbitration clause — Whether statutory and fiduciary claims arbitrable — Substance over form — Whether claims arise out of or in connection with contractual matrix 1 case

wa-22ncc-548-08-2025 PLUS THREE CONSULTANTS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v MICHAEL JAMES MCIVER
15 January 2026

Stay application — Waiver — Whether entry of appearance amounts to step in proceedings — Timing of application — Whether prompt invocation of arbitration 1 case

wa-22ncc-548-08-2025 PLUS THREE CONSULTANTS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v MICHAEL JAMES MCIVER
15 January 2026

Conduct of parties — Invocation of dispute resolution mechanism — Whether party estopped from denying arbitration — Approbation and reprobation 1 case

wa-22ncc-548-08-2025 PLUS THREE CONSULTANTS (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD v MICHAEL JAMES MCIVER
15 January 2026

Arbitration clause — Court proceedings commenced despite arbitration agreement — Whether dispute should be referred to arbitration — Whether court retains jurisdiction to grant interim relief — Preservation of subject matter pending arbitration — Arbitration Act 2005 — Minimal court intervention — Federal Court authority — Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v Etiqa Takaful Bhd — Utra Holdings Bhd v ICB Islamic Bank Bhd Injunction — Interim injunction — Freezing order (Mareva injunction) — Application initially granted ex parte — Inter-parte hearing — Whether injunction should be maintained, varied or set aside — Principles governing interlocutory injunction — Serious question to be tried — Adequacy of damages — Balance of convenience — American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd — Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v Mohd Noor Abdullah Injunction — Freezing order — Proportionality — Whether injunction should exceed amount claimed — Court’s duty to ensure order not oppressive or punitive — Freezing order limited to sum claimed — Zainal Abidin bin Mohd Hassan v Century Engineering Sdn Bhd — The Siskina Civil procedure — Interlocutory applications — Applications heard together — Ex parte injunction converted to inter-parte hearing — Court declining to determine merits at interlocutory stage Contract — Commercial agreement — Payment made under agreement — Alleged illegality or frustration following regulatory intervention — Restitutionary claim — Issues reserved for arbitral tribunal Practice and procedure — Interim measures in aid of arbitration — Court preserving assets pending arbitration — Whether court order necessary to prevent arbitral proceedings being rendered nugatory Costs — Costs in the cause 1 case

ba-22ncvc-500-10-2025 FTC HOLDING SDN BHD v 1. ) ISARB MEDIA SDN BHD 2. ) ISA BIN BATHARUL ZAMAN
22 December 2025

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

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

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

w-02ca-538-04-2025 PEMBINAAN JAYA ZIRA SDN BHD v SUNGAI LUI CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD
7 December 2025

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

wa-22ncc-20-01-2024 PERSEPOLIS ATHLETIC AND CULTURAL COMPANY v KONFEDERASI BOLA SEPAK ASIA (ASIAN FOOTBALL CONFEDERATION)
4 November 2025

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

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

Key Statutes

Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)
cited in 68 cases
Rules of Court 2012
cited in 28 cases
Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
cited in 10 cases
Arbitration Act
cited in 9 cases
Companies Act 2016 (Cap 777)
cited in 8 cases
National Land Code (Cap 828)
cited in 5 cases
Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)
cited in 5 cases
Interpretation Act
cited in 5 cases
UK Arbitration Act 1996
cited in 4 cases
English Arbitration Act 1996
cited in 3 cases
Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Cap 91)
cited in 3 cases
Contracts Act
cited in 3 cases
Federal Constitution
cited in 3 cases
Arbitration Act 1996
cited in 2 cases
UK Arbitration Act
cited in 2 cases

Court Distribution

MYHC 94 MYCOA 21 MYFC 12

Key People & Firms

Top Judges

Azlan bin Sulaiman 14 Rajes Raghavji 11 Nadzarin bin Wok Nordin 10 Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 9 Muhammad Adam bin Abdullah 8 Azimah binti Omar 7 Mariana binti Haji Yahya 7 Mohd Arief Emran bin Arifin 7 Utama Wan Ahmad Farid bin Wan Salleh 6 Muhammad Adam @ Edward bin Abdullah 6 Aliza binti Sulaiman 6 Nallini Pathmanathan 5 Ong Chee Kwan 5 Wong Kian Kheong 5 Azahar bin Mohamed 5

Top Firms

Sanjay Mohan 5 Moideen & Max 4 Mohanadass Partnership 4 Amar Syiimir Izzat & Sham 4 Rahmat Lim & Partners 4 Zul Rafique & Partners 3 Baskaran 3 Cheah Teh & Su 2 C.S. Tan Seah & Partners 2 Rosli Dahlan Saravana Partnership 2 Rajashree 2 The Law Office of Anil & Tan 2 Lo Chambers 2 Lim Chee Wee Partnership 2 Dason Raj & Partners 2

Top Lawyers

Mohanadass Kanagasabai 5 Thomas Shaun Mathews 5 Siew Suet Mey 4 Faisal Moideen 3 Kalashini Sandrasegaran 3 Sanjay Mohan 3 Ng Faye Xiang 3 Mohd Shahrysham 3 Fatin Adriana 3 Steven Seah Shu Keen 2 Rajashree Suppiah 2 Amira Nur Nadia binti Azhar 2 Kuan Kai Tat 2 Anilraj A/L Verdamanickam 2 Tay Por Hai 2

How many Arbitration cases are reported in Malaysia courts?

127 reported Malaysia judgments (2017–2026) involve Arbitration.

When will the courts stay litigation in favour of arbitration?

The judgments apply the mandatory stay under section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 and Article 8 of the Model Law where the dispute falls within a valid arbitration clause. Where a debt subject to arbitration is met by a winding-up petition, the courts consider a Fortuna injunction and the threshold for a stay or dismissal.

How are foreign arbitral awards enforced?

The collection addresses the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award registered in the seat court under the New York Convention, and the limited grounds on which enforcement may be resisted or the award set aside under the Arbitration Act 2005.

What is the courts' overall role in arbitration?

The judgments describe a supportive but limited role: giving effect to the parties' choice of arbitration with minimal curial interference, staying inconsistent litigation, and enforcing awards, while retaining the narrow supervisory jurisdiction the Act preserves.

Cases

Page 5 of 6
wa-24carb-28-05-2024
Multazam Development Sdn Bhd v FGV Plantations (MALAYSIA) Sdn. Bhd. (Dahulunya dikenali sebagai FELDA Global Ventures Plantations (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.)
28 November 2024
MYHC
ba-22ncc-94-05-2024
Aurecon Lestari Sdn. Bhd. v PJD Link (M) Sdn Bhd
26 November 2024
MYHC
ja-24nccarb-2-04-2022
QUEK PECK KEOW v EXTRA EXCEL (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
6 November 2024
MYHC
wa-24ncc-359-07-2024
CARIMIN ENGINEERING SERVICES SDN BHD v DYNAMIC NAVIGATION SDN BHD
24 October 2024
MYHC
wa-24carb-19-03-2024
ZECON ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SDN BHD v POSCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
20 October 2024
MYHC
02f-97-11-2022w
Telekom Malaysia Berhad v Obnet Sdn. Bhd.
15 October 2024
MYFC
wa-24c-1-01-2024
1. ) CHINA MACHINERY ENGINEERING CORPORATION 2. ) CHINA MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT (HK) CO. LTD 3. ) CHINA MACHINERY INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN & RESEARCH INSTITUTE CO. LTD 4. ) MATTAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) IDIWAN SOLAR SDN BHD 2. ) STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD
10 October 2024
MYHC
wa-24c-2-01-2024
1. ) CHINA MACHINERY ENGINEERING CORPORATION 2. ) CHINA MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT (HK) CO. LTD. 3. ) CHINA MACHINERY INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN & RESEARCH INSTITUTE CO. LTD. 4. ) MATTAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD v 1. ) BGMC BRAS POWER SDN BHD 2. ) STANDARD CHARTERED BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD
10 October 2024
MYHC
ba-22ncc-121-09-2023
FIRST COMMERCE SDN BHD v 1. ) BIO HARVEST SDN BHD 2. ) SOO SIEW PENG
23 September 2024
MYHC
b-02ca-2395-12-2022
1. ) LUXOR HOLDINGS SDN BHD 2. ) LUXOR YRM SDN BHD v SQA BUILDERS SDN BHD
11 September 2024
MYCOA
wa-22ncc-93-02-2023
MY JET XPRESS AIRLINES SDN BHD v 1. ) MUHAMMAD ALLIF QAYYUM BIN MOHD DIN 2. ) AZRUL HISHAM BIN DATO ABDUL WAHAB 3. ) ZEN AVIATION SDN BHD 4. ) KHAW CHIN HUAT 5. ) INFINITY FREIGHT SERVICES & SOLUTION PTE LTD 6. ) QUAH LING MING 7. ) PATRICK CHEAH POH JIN PIHAK TERKILAN AIRMARK AVIATION (S) PTE LTD
20 August 2024
MYHC
w-02ca-1082-07-2023
ENG HAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD v TOSHIBA ELEVATOR (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
16 May 2024
MYCOA
w-02ca-1083-07-2023
ENG HAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD v TOSHIBA ELEVATOR (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
16 May 2024
MYCOA
w-02imc-1084-07-2023
ENG HAN ENGINEERING SDN BHD v TOSHIBA ELEVATOR (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD
16 May 2024
MYCOA
w-01imc-105-03-2023
ESA JURUTERA PERUNDING SDN. BHD. v Universiti Malaya (UM)
29 February 2024
MYCOA
wa-24nccarb-13-05-2023
PANASONIC APPLIANCES AIR-CONDITIONING MALAYSIA SDN. BHD. v ALPHA SEIKO PLASTICS SDN. BHD.
10 January 2024
MYHC
wa-24carb-18-05-2023
JIANGSU PROVINCIAL CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD v D BOX SYSTEM (M) SDN BHD
12 October 2023
MYHC
wa-24carb-38-08-2023
D BOX SYSTEM (M) SDN BHD v JIANGSU PROVINCIAL CONSTRUCTION (M) SDN BHD
12 October 2023
MYHC
no-02i-20-03-2020s
MASENANG SDN.BHD v SABANILAM ENTERPROSE SDN.BHD
2 September 2021
MYFC
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
02i-83-09-2018w
JAYA SUDHIR A/L JAYARAM v 1. ) NAUTICAL SUPREME SDN BHD 2. ) AZIMUTH MARINE SDN BHD 3. ) NAUTILUS TUG & TOWAGE SDN BHD
30 June 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