The High Court in Padda Gurtaj Singh and others v Axiata Group Berhad and others (grounds of judgment dated 29 March 2022) granted an interim measure in the form of an injunction against Axiata Group Berhad, a non-party to an arbitration agreement. This was pending the arbitration between the parties to an arbitration agreement.
We end off our top 5 cases series for 2020 with the top 5 arbitration cases in Malaysia for 2020. I had written about last year’s top 5 arbitration cases for 2019.
This year’s cases range from anti-arbitration injunctions, what amounts to a breach of natural justice for setting aside an arbitral award, adhering to the time limit for the issuance of an award, to the arbitrability of a dispute on the register of transfer of shares. Continue reading
The Federal Court in its grounds of judgment dated 1 July 2019 in Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram v Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors reinstated an anti-arbitration injunction in favour of a non-party to an arbitration. The anti-arbitration injunction was made against the parties to an ongoing arbitration to restrain them from proceeding and continuing with the arbitration proceedings, pending the parallel Court proceedings.
The Federal Court ruled on the questions of law that sections 8 and 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005) would not apply to a party litigant who is not a party to the arbitration agreement and/or arbitration proceedings. Section 8 of the AA 2005 essentially states that no court shall intervene in matters governed by the AA 2005. Section 10 of the AA 2005 allows for the court to stay court proceedings and refer parties to arbitration.
In this decision, the Federal Court allowed a non-party to the arbitration to resort to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to grant an anti-arbitration injunction to restrain the arbitrating parties from proceeding with the arbitration. The test to be applied is the American Cyanamid-like test of a serious issue to be tried (or as applied in Malaysia via the Keet Gerald Francis test) instead of a higher threshold in the English High Court decision in J Jarvis v Blue Circle Dartfort Estates [2007[ EWHC 1262 (TCC).
Where there are parallel court proceedings involving some parties in an arbitration and non-parties to an arbitration, this Federal Court decision appears to favour giving primacy to the court proceedings and to allow an injunction or stay of the arbitration proceedings. Continue reading
In its recent grounds of judgment dated 31 October 2018, the Federal Court in the Jan De Nul decision clarified the effect of an international arbitration and the applicability of certain provisions of the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005). The Federal Court also overruled the decision in the Court of Appeal AJWA case. The dispute gave rise to two separate appeals, one in relation to section 42 of the AA 2005 and another relating to the setting aside under section 37 of the AA 2005. This decision only deals with the section 42 aspect.
My article published in The Malaysian Reserve on 27 October 2016.
At the end of August 2016, one of the world’s largest container shipping companies, Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd, filed for rehabilitation proceedings at the Korean Bankruptcy Court. The Korean Bankruptcy Court granted provisional orders to preserve Hanjin’s assets.
There was immediate chaos. Around the world, some of Hanjin’s vessels in ports were seized while other vessels were stranded out at sea for fear of being seized.
To aid the rehabilitation proceedings in South Korea, it has been reported that Hanjin will seek court protection from more than 40 countries to preserve Hanjin’s assets.
Against this backdrop, I set out the ongoing legal developments in such a cross-border insolvency scenario and how these developments may affect Malaysia.