Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ARBITRATION – SEAT OF ARBITRATION – DOMESTIC ARBITRATION

In brief

  •  The Federal Court held in Masenang Sdn Bhd v Sabanilam Enterprise Sdn Bhd that the courts of first instance of the place specified as the seat of arbitration in Malaysia have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction over arbitrations seated there, including any award arising from such proceedings. In this regard, a court of a Malaysian state that is not the court of the arbitration’s seat will have no supervisory authority over the arbitration or its award. As a result, parties desiring to have their arbitrations seated in Malaysia must select a specific Malaysian state or city as the arbitration seat.

Q. What happens if one High Court recognizes an arbitral award but another High Court refuses to recognize the identical arbitral award?

A. In Masenang Sdn Bhd v. Sabanilam Enterprise Sdn Bhd, the Federal Court was faced with this situation. [1] The Federal Court unanimously decided on 3.9.2021, that the seat of arbitration cannot simply be “Malaysia” as a whole, even for domestic arbitrations. The seat, i.e., a specific site in Malaysia, must be stated, and the courts in that location shall have exclusive supervisory jurisdiction. Because it would “give rise to deception and disorder,” and the party can no longer bring a challenge to the courts anywhere in Malaysia.

What is the law that governs both domestic and international arbitrations?

  •  Both domestic and international arbitrations in Malaysia are governed by the Arbitration Act 2005 (“AA 2005”). Section 2 of the AA 2005 defines “High Court” to mean the “High Court in Malaya and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak or either of them, as the case may require…”.
  •  The seat of arbitration is dealt with in Section 22 of the AA 2005, which states that: 1) The parties are allowed to agree on the seat of arbitration. (2) If the parties fail to agree under subsection (1), the arbitral tribunal will select the seat of arbitration based on the facts of the case, including the convenience of the parties.
  • Furthermore, Section 37 of the AA 2005 allows for the revocation of both domestic and international arbitral awards: (1) The High Court may set aside an award only if…”
  •  As a result, the reference to the “High Court” in Section 37 of the AA 2005 refers to either the High Court in Malaya or the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak, as the case may be. The question is whether the High Court of Malaya and the High Courts of Sabah and Sarawak have independent supervisory jurisdictions over arbitrations or arbitral awards in Malaysia

Decision of Federal court

  •  The Federal Court initially evaluated whether the principle of the “juridical seat” of arbitration has relevance or application in domestic arbitrations within Malaysia before going into the legal issues.
  • The Federal Court, in contrast to the Court of Appeal, found that the seat of arbitration in a domestic arbitration, i.e., the specified location within Malaysia, is a relevant consideration in determining the jurisdiction of the courts, in order to avoid multiple proceedings and conflicting decisions, and, most importantly, to maintain party autonomy.
  •  Because the arbitration is held in Kuala Lumpur, the KL High Court has exclusive supervisory authority over the arbitration and, naturally, the Award. The KK High Court’s judgement to set aside the Award, KK High Court Decision No. 2, was thus declared null and void, and the KL High Court’s decision allowing the Award to be recognized and enforced, i.e., KL High Court Decision, prevailed.

Conclusion

  •  The Federal Court’s decision harmonizes the concept of “juridical seat” in domestic arbitration with that in international arbitration, where if the parties agree that the seat of arbitration should be Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, the court with supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration must be the High Court of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur.
  •  It makes no difference where the cause of action arose; the appointed seat of arbitration determines which court has supervisory authority over the arbitration.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us