Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
  • Legal Updates from YHA Law Firm

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

Sorotan Terkini

EMPLOYMENT – RETRENCHMENT – INDUSTRIAL COURT UPHOLDS GLOBAL RESTRUCTURING: REDUNDANCY VALID DESPITE ONGOING WORK OVERSEAS

In Sin Leong v BT Systems (M) Sdn Bhd [2025] 4 ILJ 221, the Industrial Court upheld the employer’s retrenchment exercise following a global restructuring, ruling that the claimant was lawfully dismissed due to genuine redundancy. Although the claimant’s functions continued in India, the Court held that the abolition of the entire Malaysian team sufficed to establish redundancy. The company’s profitability did not negate the restructuring, and the LIFO principle did not apply since the whole department was closed. The decision reinforces that courts will respect managerial prerogative, provided the retrenchment is bona fide and not tainted by mala fide or victimisation.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DECREE NISI – ADULTERY AND FRAUD – NOT CONCEAL REMARRIAGE – COLLUSION EVIDENCE

In Kanagasingam a/l Kandiah v Shireen a/p Chelliah Thiruchelvam & Anor [2026] 7 MLJ 494, the High Court set aside spousal maintenance and committal orders after finding that the ex-wife had fraudulently concealed her remarriage, which by law extinguished her entitlement under section 82 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. The Court held that consent orders obtained through non-disclosure were vitiated by fraud and ordered repayment of RM310,000, together with RM400,000 in aggravated damages and RM300,000 in exemplary damages. The decision underscores that fraud unravels all, even in family proceedings, and that courts will not hesitate to impose punitive consequences for abuse of process.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

FEDERAL COURT SAVES SECTION 233 CMA: ‘OFFENSIVE’ AND ‘ANNOY’ REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL

In The Government of Malaysia v Heidy Quah Gaik Li [2026] MLJU 384, the Federal Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling that had struck out the words “offensive” and “annoy” from section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998. The Court held that these terms, when read together with the requirement of intent to annoy, fall within the permissible restrictions on free speech under Article 10(2)(a) of the Federal Constitution. While the impugned words were upheld as constitutional, the respondent’s acquittal was maintained as her Facebook posts criticising immigration detention conditions did not demonstrate the required intent to annoy or harass.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

HIGH COURT ORDERS TIKTOK VIDEO TAKEN DOWN: ADVICE ON SECRET CONVERSION OF MINORS VIOLATES CONSTITUTION

In Karnan a/l Rajanthiran & Ors v Firdaus Wong Wai Hung [2025] 9 MLJ 14, the High Court granted a mandatory interim injunction ordering the immediate removal of a viral TikTok video advising how underaged non-Muslim children could be secretly converted to Islam without their parents’ knowledge. The Court held that the advice prima facie breached Article 12(4) of the Federal Constitution, which provides that a minor’s religion must be determined by their parent or guardian. Given the risk of irreparable harm to constitutional rights, the Court found the case “unusually strong and clear” and concluded that justice and the balance of convenience favoured the urgent removal of the video pending trial.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME LAW – CLAUSES 28 AND 29 BARECON 2001 – OWNERS CAN’T PICK ANY PORT: COURT LIMITS ‘CONVENIENCE’ IN VESSEL REPOSSESSION CLAUSE

In Songa Product and Chemical Tankers III AS v Kairos Shipping II LLC [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 100, the Court of Appeal held that a clause allowing owners to repossess a vessel at a location “convenient to them” does not entitle them to demand redelivery at any distant port of their choosing. The Court emphasised that repossession must occur as soon as reasonably practicable, and where the vessel is already at a safe and accessible port, owners cannot require charterers to incur the cost and risk of sailing it across the world. The decision clarifies that charterers, as gratuitous bailees post-termination, are only obliged to preserve the vessel – not to undertake burdensome repositioning for the owners’ convenience.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARINE INSURANCE – FRAUD DOESN’T DEFEAT COVER: COURT UPHOLDS MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM UNDER MII POLICY OF MORTGAGEE’S CLAIM

In Oceanus Capital Sarl v Lloyd’s Insurance Co SA (The “Vyssos”) [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 79, the Commercial Court held that a mortgagee was entitled to recover under a Mortgagee’s Interest Insurance (MII) policy despite a forged war risks cover note and a breach of trading warranties by the shipowner. The Court found that the proximate cause of loss was the mine strike, not the forged insurance, and that the mortgagee was not “privy” to the breach, as its consent had been induced by fraud. The decision reinforces that MII policies are designed to protect lenders from owner misconduct and non-recovery under primary insurance, and that fraud will not defeat cover where the mortgagee acted reasonably.

Read More »
30 Mac ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY