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

ADMIRALTY IN REM – WRONGFUL ARREST – POSSESORY RIGHT – ARREST GONE WRONG: WHEN A SHIP ARREST BACKFIRES WITH DAMAGES

In Eletson Holdings Inc & Ors v The Vessel “Paros” [2026] 8 MLJ 80, the High Court set aside an arrest after finding that the plaintiffs had no proprietary or possessory right to the vessel at the time of the writ, as the bareboat charter had already been terminated. The Court held that the claim was in substance a corporate control dispute dressed up as an admiralty action, and emphasised that such disputes do not fall within admiralty jurisdiction. Critically, the plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the termination of the charter when obtaining the arrest warrant amounted to a serious breach, leading the Court to find mala fides or gross negligence and order damages for wrongful arrest. The decision reinforces that ship arrest is a powerful remedy that must be exercised with full disclosure and a proper maritime foundation.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

GUARANTEE – PERSONAL GUARANTEE ≠ PAY ON DEMAND: COURT DRAWS THE LINE BETWEEN SURETYSHIP AND DEMAND GUARANTEES

In CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2026] Lloyds’s Rep 267, the Commercial Court clarified that not all guarantees labelled “on demand” will be treated as demand guarantees. On a proper construction, the court held that the personal guarantee in question was a contract of suretyship, requiring proof of the principal debtor’s liability rather than automatic payment upon demand. Crucially, the court found that the debtor’s “irrevocable” admissions of debt in a payment agreement created a binding contractual estoppel, which the guarantor could not challenge. The decision also confirms that, where payment is due on a “day certain”, a seller may still claim the price notwithstanding retention of title. The case underscores the importance of precise drafting and the risks of entering into settlement agreements that conclusively fix liability.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

MARITIME NEGLIGENCE – PLAINTIFF CLAIMED FOR DAMAGES CAUSED DURING ANCHOR DEPLOYMENT OPERATION – CALDERBANK OFFERS

In Tom Eastwind 365 Sdn Bhd v The Owners of the Vessel “Icon Sophia” [2025] 9 MLJ 397, the High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied in a maritime collision during an anchor deployment operation, allowing an inference of negligence against the tug owner. The Court clarified that the doctrine is not defeated merely because the defendant adduces evidence explaining the accident – such evidence goes to rebutting the inference, not preventing it. While liability was established due to the tug master’s error of judgment in manoeuvring too close to a stationary barge, the plaintiff failed to properly prove its damages and was awarded only RM50,000. Notably, despite succeeding on liability, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs after rejecting reasonable Calderbank offers, underscoring the risks of pursuing litigation without properly substantiated claims.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

JURISDICTION – BILLS OF LADING – BREACH OF HIMALAYA CLAUSE – BREACH OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION CLAUSE – ONEROUS OR UNUSUAL TERMS

In Maersk Guinéa-Bissau SARL v Almar-Hum Bubacar Baldé SARL [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215, the English Commercial Court held that a shipper was liable for breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause and a Himalaya clause after commencing proceedings in Guinea-Bissau instead of England. The Court confirmed that such clauses are standard and enforceable, and that commencing foreign proceedings in breach of them can give rise to a claim for damages. Notably, the Court also recognised that Himalaya clauses may be used offensively, allowing subcontractors to recover losses caused by wrongful litigation. The foreign judgment was not recognised due to lack of jurisdiction and denial of natural justice.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

DELIVERY WITHOUT PRESENTATION OF BILL OF LADING – LOI WON’T SAVE YOU: SHIPOWNER LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY DESPITE INDEMNITY

In United Overseas Bank Ltd v The “Maersk Katalin” [2026] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 18, the Singapore High Court reaffirmed that delivery of cargo without presentation of original bills of lading remains a fundamental breach, even where carried out against letters of indemnity. The Court held that LOIs merely shift commercial risk but do not authorise misdelivery, and rejected arguments of consent, ratification and causation. Significantly, the Court emphasised that the burden lies on the carrier to prove that the loss would have occurred in any event – a burden not easily discharged. The decision underscores the continued strict liability regime in misdelivery cases, particularly where banks as bill holders are involved.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT LAW – ‘UK COURTS’ MEANS ENGLAND: COURT UPHOLDS JURISDICTION DESPITE VAGUE CLAUSE

In SMT Global Logistics Ltd v Georgian Airlines LLC [2025] Lloyd’s Rep. Plus 89, the Commercial Court held that a clause referring disputes to “the court in accordance with current legislation of the United Kingdom” was a valid jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of England and Wales. The Court also confirmed that the Montreal Convention does not apply to pure contractual claims for non-performance, such as repayment and loss of profits. Emphasising a broad and commercially sensible interpretation, the Court enforced the parties’ choice of forum and refused to stay proceedings, reaffirming that jurisdiction clauses will be upheld unless there are overwhelming reasons to depart.

Read More »
14 Julai ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY