In the past decade, there have been concerted efforts by key stakeholders to promote Malaysia as a seat of arbitration. The efforts have been fruitful. Today, Malaysia is widely recognised as an arbitration-friendly destination. A comprehensive legal framework governing the arbitration laws in Malaysia under the Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005 (2005 Act) and a judiciary that is impartial, efficient and pro-arbitration have contributed much to the cause.
Over the past year, Malaysia's arbitration scene has witnessed some interesting developments. Among other things, the Malaysian courts have refined the limits of judicial intervention in international arbitration and affirmed the privileges and immunities accorded to the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), while continuing to uphold the principles of minimal curial intervention. Mr Vinayak Pradhan has been appointed the acting director of the AIAC, replacing Professor Dr Sundra Rajoo, who resigned on 21 November 2018.
This chapter outlines the general legal principles of international arbitration in Malaysia and recent developments in this area of law.
i Legal framework
The legal framework for international arbitration in Malaysia is governed by the 2005 Act. In addition, Order 69 of the Rules of Court 2012 sets out the procedural requirements as regards arbitration-related suits such as applications for the appointment of arbitrators and the enforcement of awards.
The 2005 Act was enacted to cater to the increasing need for a modernised and global approach in arbitration law in Malaysia, and in consequence repealed the Arbitration Act 1952 and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award Act 1985. This can be seen in the long title of the 2005 Act, which reads that it was intended to 'reform the law relating to domestic arbitration, provided for international arbitration, the recognition and enforcement of awards and for related matters'. Further, the provisions of the 2005 Act were intended to be user friendly for parties involved in arbitral disputes and to facilitate resolution of international disputes by way of arbitration in Malaysia.2
There are four parts to the 2005 Act. The first part sets out preliminary matters such as applicability of the 2005 Act and definitions of key terms including international arbitration and arbitral award. Part II deals with the general provisions of arbitration, and chiefly follows the structure and headings of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 (UNCITRAL Model Law). Among other things, it provides for the appointment of arbitrators, the powers of the Malaysian High Court in relation to stay of proceedings and interim measures, conduct of the arbitral proceedings, termination of proceedings, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Part III provides for the additional powers of the Malaysian High Court to intervene in arbitral proceedings. Part IV covers miscellaneous issues such as the liability of arbitrators and arbitral institutions and the enforceability of arbitration agreements against bankrupts.
2011 and 2018 amendments
The 2005 Act underwent two major amendments in 2011 and 2018 to enhance Malaysia's profile as a safe seat and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The amendments also bring the 2005 Act in line with international arbitration jurisprudence under the UNCITRAL Model Law, which was amended in 2006.
One relevant amendment is the introduction of Section 8, whereby court intervention is limited only to matters expressly provided for under the 2005 Act. The Malaysian Federal Court in Far East Holdings Bhd v. Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang confirmed that this Section provides for a policy of minimal intervention, which is consonant with the underlying policy of the UNCITRAL Model Law.3 Further, provisions on jurisdiction and the powers of the courts have been amended to follow the UNCITRAL Model Law. With regard to the court's powers to grant interim measures in aid of arbitration proceedings, Section 11 has been amended to adopt the language of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Prior to the 2018 amendment, under Section 42 of the 2005 Act, any party could refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of an award. On the determination of a reference, the High Court may confirm or vary the award, remit the award in whole or in part to the tribunal for reconsideration, or set aside the award in whole or in part. Section 42 of the 2005 Act has since been deleted.
The scope and enforceability of the powers of arbitral tribunals were also expanded considerably by the 2011 and 2018 amendments. Section 19(2) has been amended to allow for an arbitral tribunal to issue an interim measure in the form of an arbitral award or any other form and includes restoring the status quo of parties pending the determination of a dispute. Pursuant to Section 19B, parties may also apply for a preliminary order to prevent the frustration of any interim measures. Additionally, under Section 19H, an interim measure issued by an arbitral tribunal is recognised to be binding and may be enforced irrespective of the country in which it was issued.
The amendments introduced in 2011 and 2018 also seek to encourage the use of arbitration to settle disputes. Emergency arbitration proceedings are now recognised under the 2005 Act, in tandem with the newly revised AIAC Arbitration Rules 2018. Further, the definition of an arbitration agreement in writing has been broadened to cover agreements recorded in any form, including electronic communications. Confidentiality elements of an arbitration proceeding are also protected. Unless agreed otherwise, parties are prohibited from publishing, disclosing or communicating any information relating to the arbitral proceedings or award under Section 41A. Section 41B further provides that court proceedings shall not be heard in open court, but the court may make an order for open court proceedings upon the application of a party.
Judicial assistance and intervention
Where there is an arbitration agreement, parties may apply to the court to stay legal proceedings pursuant to Section 10 of the 2005 Act. The courts will consider whether the arbitration agreement is not null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. If all these requirements are fulfilled, the Malaysian Federal Court in Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd held that a stay of legal proceedings in favour of the arbitration proceedings is mandatory.4 This applies to both domestic and international arbitrations.
The issue of whether a particular dispute falls within an agreement to arbitrate is construed based on the commercial purpose of the arbitration agreement.5 The Federal Court in Press Metal also considered that the courts should interpret the clause widely and lean more towards granting a stay pending arbitration, even if there are some doubts as to the validity of an arbitration clause or whether the subject matter of a dispute falls within the ambit of an arbitration agreement.6
Section 11 of the 2005 Act empowers the Malaysian courts to grant interim reliefs in aid of arbitration. These interim reliefs include maintaining the status quo pending determination of the dispute, preventing any action that is likely to cause harm or prejudice to the arbitral process, providing means for the preservation of assets and preserving evidence relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute. Pursuant to Section 11(3), Section 11 has extraterritorial jurisdiction and extends to international arbitrations (i.e., where the seat of arbitration is not in Malaysia).
Consistent with the policy of minimal court intervention, the courts have construed Section 11 to allow only limited judicial intervention.7 Consequently, the courts will decline to exercise their power to grant interim relief where it would deprive parties of their freedom to contract and resolve a dispute by arbitration, or where it would usurp the role and function of an arbitral tribunal. It has been further clarified by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in Obnet Sdn Bhd v. Telekom Malaysia Bhd that the powers under Section 11 must be read as intending to support and facilitate the arbitration proceedings, and not to displace or to exercise a supervisory role over the arbitration proceedings.8
Notwithstanding the limits placed on court powers by the amendments in 2011 and 2018, the Malaysian courts are not ousted from exercising jurisdiction on matters relating to arbitration. The courts still retain their inherent jurisdiction to decide on matters not specifically regulated under the 2005 Act.9
Enforcement and setting aside of arbitral awards
The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Malaysia is governed by Sections 38 and 39 of the 2005 Act. A party may apply to the High Court of Malaysia for an arbitral award made in Malaysia to be recognised as binding and subsequently enforced as a judgment. Foreign arbitral awards (i.e., a non-Malaysian award from a state that is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958) may also be recognised as binding and enforceable in Malaysia pursuant to the same sections.
On the other hand, an arbitral award may be set aside by the High Court under Section 37 of the 2005 Act. Generally, an arbitral award is deemed to be 'final, binding and conclusive and can only be challenged in exceptional circumstances'.10 The Malaysian Federal Court in Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Vincent Tan Chee Yioun held that against the background policy of encouraging arbitral finality and minimalist intervention, the courts must be slow in interfering with or setting aside an arbitral award, as constant interference would defeat the spirit of the 2005 Act.11 To succeed, the party applying to set aside the arbitral award pursuant to Section 37 must show that the award-making process itself was compromised, as opposed to any error of facts, law, or both.12
International and domestic arbitration
An international arbitration is defined under Section 2 of the 2005 Act as an arbitration where the place of business of one of the parties is outside of Malaysia, where the seat of arbitration or a substantial part of the obligations or subject matter is outside Malaysia, or where there is an express agreement that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one state. If none of these is fulfilled, then the arbitration is deemed to be a domestic arbitration.
Whether an arbitration proceeding is considered to be an international or domestic arbitration has significant implications for the parties. Section 3 of the 2005 Act distinguishes the applicability of the 2005 Act to domestic and international arbitrations where the seat of arbitration is in Malaysia. Unless the parties to a domestic arbitration expressly opt out in an arbitration agreement, the parties are subject to a more interventionist regime whereby Part III of the 2005 Act would apply, for example, for applications by a party for the determination of a preliminary point of law by the court or for an extension of time to commence arbitration proceedings. On the other hand, parties to an international arbitration have to expressly agree to opt in if they intend for Part III of the 2005 Act to be applicable to their disputes.
The Malaysian Federal Court in Tan Sri Dato' Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun v. Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd13 clarified that the only relevant consideration in determining the application of Part III of the 2005 Act is whether a foreign party, such as a party having its place of business outside of Malaysia, is a party to the arbitration agreement. The courts will not consider the law governing the arbitration agreement. Similarly, an agreement to adopt Malaysian law as the law governing a contract will not be interpreted as an agreement to apply Part III of the 2005 Act.
ii Local institutions
There are several arbitral institutions in Malaysia, including the Institute of Engineers Malaysia, the Palm Oil Refiners Association of Malaysia and the Malaysia International Chambers of Commerce. However, the main arbitral institution in Malaysia is the AIAC. Formerly known as the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration, the AIAC was established in 1978 to provide for a system to settle disputes in regard to international commercial transactions. Today, it has grown from being a regional arbitration centre to a multi-service hub for alternative dispute resolution such as adjudication and mediation.
As an international arbitration institution, the AIAC provides for its own arbitration rules. While both ad hoc and institutional arbitration are recognised in Malaysia, the most popular type of institutional arbitration in Malaysia is governed by the AIAC. The revised AIAC Arbitration Rules 2018 adopt the framework of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2013 and provide for, among other things, the expeditious appointment of emergency arbitrators, joinder of parties and consolidation of disputes.
The AIAC also provides niche arbitration rules such as the AIAC i-Arbitration Rules and the AIAC Fast-Track Arbitration Rules. The i-Arbitration Rules were introduced in 2012 and were intended for Islamic and non-Islamic parties to arbitrate a shariah complaint pertaining to commercial transactions. As such, it provides a set of shariah-complaint rules that include a procedure for the referral of questions to a shariah advisory council or shariah expert.
On the other hand, the Fast-Track Arbitration Rules offer a simplified version of the AIAC Arbitration Rules to allow for expedited proceedings and minimal costs. One salient feature of the Fast-Track Arbitration Rules is the requirement that awards be published within 180 days from the date of the AIAC's notice of commencement of arbitration. Parties are also afforded more autonomy in the fast-track arbitration proceedings and may, among other things, agree to dispense with an oral hearing and rely solely on the exchange of documents.
In addition to administering institutional arbitrations, the AIAC also acts as the appointing authority pursuant to Section 13(4) of the 2005 Act if parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitral tribunal. Services offered by the AIAC also extend to offering hearing facilities, determining arbitrators' fees, the appointment of emergency arbitrators and considering the consolidation of proceedings. The AIAC may further act as the appointing authority or authorised fundholder in ad hoc proceedings.
The AIAC formed a Conflicts Resolution Panel on 26 November 2018 to continue to uphold its reputation of impartiality and to deal with situations where the Director of the AIAC has to make a decision when there exists a conflict of interest on his or her part. The Director may call the Conflicts Resolution Panel to enable a decision to be implemented by him or her. As previously mentioned, the current Director is Vinayak Pradhan.
On 15 August 2017, the AIAC launched its first suite of standard form of contracts, followed by the launch of its standard form of design and build contracts on 3 July 2018. The AIAC has also introduced its 2019 edition of the standard form of building contracts, which comprise a main contract and a subcontract as a comprehensive unified contract for users to customise to meet their specific needs. The dispute resolution sections of the standard form of building contracts 2019 incorporate the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2018 and the 2005 Act.14
ii THE YEAR IN REVIEW
i Developments affecting international arbitration
In a recent decision by the High Court,15 the AIAC successfully applied to strike out a judicial review commenced by One Amerin Sdn Bhd for, among other things, an order of certiorari to quash the AIAC's decision to appoint the second respondent as the adjudicator for an adjudication initiated by the third respondent. This decision upholds the privileges and immunities afforded to the AIAC as a neutral and independent organisation pursuant to the International Organization (Immunity and Privileges) Act 1992, and in its capacity as an administrative authority for adjudication proceedings commenced under the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012.
As previously mentioned, the AIAC has also formed a Conflicts Resolution Panel.
ii Arbitration developments in local courts
The Malaysian courts have recently been asked to decide whether the presence of the word 'may' in an arbitration clause would render it mandatory to stay legal proceedings in favour of arbitration. In Maya Maju (M) Sdn Bhd v. Putrajaya Homes Sdn Bhd,16 the arbitration clause allowed the parties to first refer the dispute to their employer representative, and in the event they were dissatisfied with the representative's decision, the parties could then require that the dispute be referred to arbitration. The High Court found that the word may does not mean that the parties had the option to resolve the dispute by way of litigation or arbitration. Instead, reading the clause in the context of its header, the parties only had the option of choosing whether or not to further refer the dispute to arbitration: there was no option to refer the dispute to litigation. The High Court noted that there was a growing paradigm shift towards upholding parties' agreement to arbitrate.17 In light of this, the High Court held that the use of the word may in the arbitration clause pointed to the parties' intention to proceed with arbitration and allowed a stay of the legal proceedings.
Setting aside of arbitral awards
Keeping in line with the restrictive approach that the Malaysian courts have adopted in setting aside or refusing recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards, a new development is the Federal Court decision in Jan De Nul (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Anor.18 In this case, the Federal Court clarified the high threshold in setting aside an arbitral award on grounds of public policy pursuant to Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
Central Malaysian Properties Sdn Bhd (CMP) was the developer of a project for the reclamation of land along the shoreline in Johor Bahru. During the project, part of the reclaimed platform collapsed. CMP defaulted on its progress payments to Jan De Nul Malaysia Sdn Bhd (JDN) and JDN subsequently terminated the contract. The parties then referred the dispute to arbitration. An arbitral award was made, but JDN filed an originating summons under Section 37 of the 2005 Act to set aside part of the award on grounds, inter alia, that the award was in breach of public policy or natural justice, or both, under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of the 2005 Act.
Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the 2005 Act, an award may be set aside by the High Court if it finds that the award is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia. Under Section 37(2)(b)(ii), an award is said to be in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia where a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award. The application was dismissed by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Leave to appeal to the Federal Court was granted to JDN on the question of whether the test for the intervention of the court under Section 37 of the 2005 Act is one where the award suffers from patent injustice, or where the award is manifestly unlawful and unconscionable, or both.
The Federal Court recognised that although the term public policy was not defined in the 2005 Act, as commonly used, it signifies matters that concern the public good and the public interest. The Federal Court referred to the Court of Appeal decision in Sigur Ros Sdn Bhd v. Master Mulia Sdn Bhd,19 which held that 'the concept of public policy must be one taken in the higher sense where some fundamental principle of law or justice is engaged, some element of illegality, where enforcement of the award involves clear injury to public good or the integrity of the court's process or powers will be abused'. Although a broad concept, it was held by the Federal Court that public policy ought to be read narrowly and restrictively in the context of an application to set aside an award under the 2005 Act.
In defining the scope of public policy as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award, the Federal Court held that an arbitral award may only be set aside in deserving cases where there appears to be a violation of the most basic notions of morality and justice, which covers fundamental principles of law and justice in substantive as well as procedural aspects. Instances where there exist patent injustice, manifest unlawfulness and unconscionableness, substantial injustice, serious irregularity and other similar flaws in the arbitral process that have a real effect and prejudice the basic right of an applicant would fall within the ambit of public policy.
However, the Court of Appeal cautioned that even where a conflict with public policy is established, the courts' power to set aside an award under Section 37 remains discretionary. The courts will be slow to interfere with or set aside an arbitral award so as to uphold the objective of the 2005 Act, which seeks to bring Malaysia in line with international arbitration practice.
Enforcement of arbitral awards
The case of Tune Talk Sdn Bhd v. Padda Gurtaj Singh20 once again demonstrates the pro-enforcement position of the Malaysian courts. In this case, after a full hearing in the arbitration proceedings, the final award dismissed the claimant's claim for a declaration. An ex parte order was then granted for the recognition and enforcement of the final award. The claimant sought to set aside the ex parte order on grounds that the final award did not make any positive ruling that was capable of being enforced.
The Court of Appeal held that Section 38 and Section 39 of the 2005 Act are exhaustive, and that there is no room for any other substantive requirement to be fulfilled for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award. So long as the substantive requirements in Section 38 of the 2005 Act are fulfilled by the applicant seeking to enforce an award and there are no grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of the award under Section 39 of the 2005 Act, the Court is bound to recognise and enforce the award by entry as a judgment of the court. Order 69 of the Rules of Court 2012, which merely sets out the procedural means to obtain enforcement and recognition of an arbitration award, cannot be a substantive requirement, and any non-compliance is not fatal. The Court of Appeal also held that Section 38 and Section 39 of the 2005 Act, which are mandatory and exhaustive, will override any common law principle.
Restraint of arbitration proceedings
One recent development in the Malaysian arbitration scene is a clarification of the test applicable to the restraint of arbitration proceedings by non-parties to the arbitration agreement. In the case of Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd v. Jaya Sudhir Jayaram,21 the plaintiff, who was not a party to the arbitration proceedings, had sought an injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings against the second, third and fourth defendants who are parties to a pending arbitration proceeding.
Hence, as summarised by the Court of Appeal, the questions that arose in this case were:
- whether Section 10(1) and 10(3) of the 2005 Act apply to persons who are not a party to arbitration proceedings;
- whether a non-party can restrain the arbitration proceedings, and what test is applicable to the non-party; and
- whether the test to restrain arbitration proceedings should be less stringent as against a person who is not a party to arbitration proceedings as compared to parties to arbitration proceedings.
At the High Court it was held, based on the authority of Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v. Sum-Projects (Brothers) Sdn Bhd,22 that where there are non-parties to arbitration proceedings, the best approach would be to grant an injunction to restrain the arbitration proceedings and allow the disputes to be dealt with by the court. Bina Jati was cited with approval by the Federal Court in Chase Perdana Bhd v. Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd & Anor.23 The High Court reasoned that where the rights of a non-party to arbitration proceedings are involved, priority should be given for the matter to be dealt with by the courts so that the non-party to the arbitration proceedings 'would not be left out in the cold'.
In Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor @ Harun bin Abdullah & Ors,24 the High Court applied the general test for an interlocutory injunction and held that the plaintiff had satisfied the criteria laid down. In particular, the Court held that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff so as to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and a possibility of an inconsistent outcome between the court proceedings and the arbitration proceedings.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the decision of the High Court and reiterated the courts' non-interventionist policy, which underlies the 2005 Act. It was held by the Court of Appeal that while Section 10(1) and Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act do not seem to apply to persons who are not a party to arbitration proceedings, this does not mean that a non-party is at liberty to derail pending arbitration proceedings: due regard must be given to the objective of the 2005 Act, and the courts should be cognisant of pending arbitration proceedings.
The Court of Appeal also cautioned that an injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings must be exercised sparingly: an injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings should only be granted if the conditions as laid down in the English case of J Jarvis & Sons Limited v. Blue Circle Dartford Estates Limited25 are satisfied. The test in Keet Gerald26 as applied by the High Court is a general test for the granting of interim injunctions and has no application where a person who is not a party to arbitration proceedings seeks to restrain the arbitration proceedings. Thus, based on J Jarvis & Sons, the conditions are twofold, and would only be granted if the injunction does not cause injustice to the claimant in the arbitration, and if the continuance of the arbitration would be oppressive, vexatious, unconscionable or an abuse of process.
The Court of Appeal also held that the contractual duty of the parties to the arbitration agreement to abide by their agreement should not be a basis to impose a lower threshold on parties not contractually bound by the arbitration agreement. There cannot be a lower threshold, as this would undermine the rationale and objective of the 2005 Act. A lower threshold will lead to the absurd position that a non-party, who is not bound by an award of the arbitration, may obtain an injunction to restrain arbitration proceedings more easily than the parties to the arbitration proceeding.
This decision, which found that a possible inconsistent finding on concurrent proceedings is an insufficient ground to restrain arbitration proceedings, effectively overrules the position in Bina Jati,27 where it was held that the arbitrator's jurisdiction may be ousted in cases where there is a multiplicity of or concurrent proceedings that may give rise to inconsistent decisions. Given the foregoing, it is evident that the courts in Malaysia continue to adopt a pro-arbitration stance in upholding the contractual bargain of the parties to arbitrate.
Inherent jurisdiction of the courts
In the case of La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holdings Sdn Bhd (and another appeal),28 the Court of Appeal dealt with the issue of whether courts in Malaysia have the inherent jurisdiction to grant an interim award in a case that is being arbitrated in Singapore under the laws of Singapore. The Court of Appeal held under Section 11 of the 2005 Act that it has the jurisdiction to grant interim relief, even if the seat is not in Malaysia, provided that 'it must strictly relate to the parties within the jurisdiction'. The Court of Appeal recognised that the interim relief was limited to supporting, assisting, aiding or facilitating the Singapore arbitral proceedings.
The Court of Appeal has also reasserted its position that despite Section 8 of the 2005 Act, which provides that 'no court shall intervene in matters governed by this Act, except where so provided in this Act', the courts are not ousted of their inherent jurisdiction to act in matters relating to arbitration. The Court of Appeal has emphasised that Section 8 merely advocates minimum intervention by the courts, rather than no intervention at all, although by virtue of Section 8, the courts will be slow to provide relief (albeit not clearly spelled out in the Act).
iii Investor–state disputes
To date, Malaysia has been involved in three investment treaty arbitrations pursuant to bilateral investment treaties (BITs). These claims were however either dismissed or discontinued. In Gruslin v. Malaysia (II),29 a claim was brought against Malaysia for an alleged violation of the terms under the Belgium–Luxembourg Economic Union–Malaysia BIT 1979, but the claim was later dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. In Malaysia Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v. Malaysia,30 a claim was brought under the Malaysia–United Kingdom BIT for non-payment of proceeds from the recovery of ship cargo in Malaysian waters. The claim was also subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The most recent dispute involving Malaysia as the respondent was in 2017 under the ASEAN Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments 1987. However, there has been no reported progress since the issuance of the notice of the dispute in 2017.31
iii OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS
The recent decisions of the Malaysian courts highlighted above and the amendments to the 2005 Act solidify Malaysia's position as a modern and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. There is no doubting that Malaysia has in place the necessary legal framework and ecosystem to position itself as a destination of choice for international arbitration. Although there is still work to be done, from the developments we have witnessed over the past year, Malaysia is progressing on the right path.
1 Yap Yeow Han is a partner at Rahmat Lim & Partners.
2 House of Representatives, Parliamentary Hansard (7 December 2005) 105.
3  1 CLJ 693. See also Kerajaan Malaysia v. Perwira Bintang Holdings Sdn Bhd  6 MLJ 126.
4 Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd  5 MLJ 417.
5 Press Metal  5 MLJ 417, paragraph 91.
6  5 MLJ 417, paragraph 88.
7 See Bumi Armada Navigation Sdn Bhd v. Mirza Marine Sdn Bhd  5 CLJ 652.
8 Obnet Sdn Bhd v. Telekom Malaysia Bhd  1 LNS 1502.
9 See La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holding Sdn Bhd & Another  9 CLJ 593.
10 See Intelek Timur Sdn Bhd v. Future Heritage Sdn Bhd  1 CLJ 743.
11 Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Vincent Tan Chee Yioun  1 CLJ 1. See also Court of Appeal decision in Ajwa For Food Industries Co v. Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd  2 CLJ 395.
12 Petronas Penapisan (Melaka) Sdn Bhd v. Ahmani Sdn Bhd  3 CLJ 403. The decision was later approved by the Federal Court in Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v. Vincent Tan Chee Yioun  1 CLJ 1.
13 Tan Sri Dato' Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun v. Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd  1 CLJ 19.
14 'The AIAC Launches its 2019 Edition of the Standard Form of Building Contract and Sub-Contract (AIAC 2019 SFC)' (28 November 2018): https://www.aiac.world/news/271/The-AIAC-Launches-its-2019-Edition-of-the-Standard-Form-of-Building-Contract-and-Sub-Contract-(AIAC-2019-SFC), accessed 2 May 2019.
15  1 LNS 2101. See also AIAC, 'Preservation of the AIAC's Immunity from Suit and Legal Process' (26 April 2019): https://www.aiac.world/news/276/Preservation-of-the-AIAC's-Immunity-from-Suit-and-Legal-Process, accessed 2 May 2019.
16 Maya Maju (M) Sdn Bhd v. Putrajaya Homes Sdn Bhd  1 LNS 1245.
17 See Malaysian Newsprint Industries Sdn Bhd v. Bechtel International, Inc & Anor  5 MLJ 254; TNB Fuel Services Sdn Bhd v. China National Coal Group Corp  4 MLJ 857.
18 Jan De Nul (M) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Anor  2 MLJ 413.
19 Sigur Ros Sdn Bhd v. Master Mulia Sdn Bhd  3 MLJ 608.
20 Tune Talk Sdn Bhd v. Padda Gurtaj Singh  MLJU 67.
21 Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd v. Jaya Sudhir Jayaram  3 CLJ 628.
22 Bina Jati Sdn Bhd v. Sum-Projects (Brothers) Sdn Bhd  1 CLJ 433;  2 MLJ 71 (CA).
23 Chase Perdana Bhd v. Pekeliling Triangle Sdn Bhd & Anor  1 CLJ 313;  7 MLJ 677.
24 Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor @ Harun bin Abdullah & Ors  1 CLJ 293 (CA).
25 J Jarvis & Son Limited v. Blue Circle Dartford Estates Limited  EWHC 1262.
26 See footnote 24.
27 See footnote 22.
28 La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holdings Sdn Bhd (and another appeal)  MLJU 703.
29 Gruslin v. Malaysia (II), ICSID case No. ARB/99/3.
30 Malaysia Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v. Malaysia, ICSID case No. ARB/05/10.