Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ARBITRATION – AWARD – ENFORCEMENT

In brief

  •  Arbitration is a kind of alternative dispute resolution in which disputants agree to have their disagreements resolved by a third party (i.e. one or more arbitrators). Parties that choose arbitration agree not to take their disagreement to court. Arbitration is sometimes considered as a more appealing option than going to court, particularly in specific sectors or when the issue is worldwide. The Arbitration Act 2005 (“Act”) governs arbitration procedures in Malaysia. 

Q. Is it permissible for a Singapore-based corporation to have an arbitral award enforced in Malaysia?

A. Yes, Malaysia is a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Judgements, which compels signing nations’ courts to recognise and enforce arbitration awards issued by other contracting governments. 

How are arbitral awards enforced in Malaysia? 

  •  Where the seat of arbitration is in Malaysia, or the award is from a state that is a contractual party to the New York Convention, Section 38 of the Act governs the recognition and enforcement of awards. As a result, an arbitral ruling is final and binding on the parties under the Act. To summarise, a party seeking to enforce an arbitral award must go to the High Court for the award to be recognised as binding. The award may be enforced as if it were a court decision in terms of the award once it has been recognised by the High Court

Q. However, may a court refuse to recognise or enforce an arbitral award if it is not satisfied?

A. Yes, the court has the authority to refuse to recognise or enforce an arbitral award in exceptional circumstances, such as when a party presents to the High Court under any incapacity described in S.39(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 2005, or if the High Court determines that the arbitral award is unreasonable or falls under any incapacity described in S.39(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005. 

Is it possible to challenge the arbitral award decision?

  •  Generally you’re not able to appeal against it even if you’re unhappy with it. However, if any of the Grounds for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement are present, the Act authorises the High Court to set aside an arbitral judgement (Section 37 of the Act). A setting aside application, on the other hand, must be filed within 90 days of receiving the award. Moving on, an arbitral award can be set aside if it is against Malaysian “public policy” or if the award was influenced or influenced by fraud or corruption, or if a violation of natural justice occurred during the arbitral processes or in connection with the award. Furthermore, if the grounds for setting aside the award are that it was inspired or influenced by fraud or corruption, the 90-day time limit for requesting to set aside the award does not apply.

Q. What if I’m not happy with the arbitrator can I file a suit against him?

A. An arbitrator is not accountable for any act or omission done or failed to be done in the exercise of his powers as an arbitrator unless the conduct or omission is demonstrated to be in bad faith, according to the Act.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us