Over the past 10 years, 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.
Statistics from the leading arbitration institution in Malaysia, the Asia International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), are reflective of the efforts that have been put in by the relevant stakeholders. The caseload at the AIAC began to rise since 2011. From 2012 to 2014, there was a yearly increase in the number of cases referred to the AIAC, peaking in 2014 with 226 cases registered as at July 2014 alone (as compared to approximately 20 cases prior to 2011). Although the number of new cases seemed to have dropped in 2015 and 2016, in the most recent years, the number of new cases referred to the AIAC seems to have steadied. In 2018, 90 cases were referred to AIAC. 2019 had been also been a busy year for the AIAC, as it recorded a total of 153 appointments and confirmations of arbitrators.
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to cater to the increasing need for a modernised and global approach in arbitration law in Malaysia, and in consequence repealed the Arbitration Act 1952 and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award Act 1985.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 the 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 the 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 the stay of proceedings and interim measures, the conduct of arbitral proceedings, the termination of arbitral proceedings, and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Part III provides for additional powers of the Malaysian High Court to intervene in arbitral proceedings and the confidentiality of information relating to arbitral proceedings and awards. 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 20113 and 20184 to enhance Malaysia's profile as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The amendments also brought 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 Federal Court in Far East Holdings Bhd v. Majlis Ugama Islam dan Adat Resam Melayu Pahang5 confirmed that this Section provides for a policy of minimal intervention, which is consonant with the underlying policy of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Further, provisions on the jurisdiction and powers of the courts have been amended to follow the UNCITRAL Model Law. With regard to the courts' 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, 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 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 an arbitral tribunal to issue interim measures in the form of an arbitral award or any other form including 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 as 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 recognised under the 2005 Act, in tandem with the 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 under the 2005 Act shall not be heard in open court, unless otherwise ordered by the court upon the application of a party.
The amendments introduced in 2018 also clarified the position on an arbitral tribunal's power to grant both pre-award and post-award interest. It is now clear from the amendments to Section 33 of the 2005 Act that an arbitral tribunal has the authority to grant both pre-award and post-award interest.
Judicial assistance and intervention
Where court proceedings are brought in respect of the subject of an arbitration agreement, parties may apply to the said court to stay proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration pursuant to Section 10 of the 2005 Act. The courts will consider whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. If all these requirements are fulfilled, a stay of legal proceedings in favour of the arbitration proceedings is mandatory.6 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.7 The Federal Court in Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd also considered that 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.8 In a recent case where a judgment in default was obtained in court proceedings notwithstanding the existence of an arbitration agreement, the Federal Court in Tindak Murni Sdn Bhd v. Juang Setia Sdn Bhd 9 decided that the arbitration should take precedence as there was a valid arbitration agreement, and that the judgment in default obtained ought to have been set aside and the matter referred to arbitration in accordance with the statutory requirements of Section 10 of the 2005 Act.
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 a 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.10 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 Court of Appeal in Obnet Sdn Bhd v. Telekom Malaysia Bhd 11 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.12
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.13
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 for an arbitral award to be recognised as binding and subsequently enforced as a judgment in Malaysia. For a non-Malaysian arbitral award, Section 38 requires the award to be from a state that is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958. Recognition or enforcement of an award may only be refused on the specific grounds set out in Section 39.
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'.14 The Federal Court in Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Anor15 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.16 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.17
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, 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 under Part III of the 2005 Act such as the court's determination of a preliminary point of law or an extension of time to commence arbitration proceedings, upon the application by a party. On the other hand, parties to an international arbitration will have to expressly agree to opt in if they intend for Part III of the 2005 Act to be applicable to their disputes.
The Federal Court in Tan Sri Dato' Seri Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Anor v. Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor Appeal18 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 an 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 Malaysian Institute of Architects. 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 recent years, the AIAC has also launched a suite of standard form building contracts. The dispute resolution sections of the standard form building contracts 2019 incorporate the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2018 and the 2005 Act.19
In order to continue upholding its reputation of impartiality, the AIAC formed a Conflicts Resolution Panel on 26 November 2018. In the event that the Director of the AIAC has to make a decision where there exists a conflict of interest on his or her part, the Director may call upon at least two members of the Conflicts Resolution Panel to enable a decision to be implemented by him or her.
ii THE YEAR IN REVIEW
i Developments affecting international arbitration
In a recent decision by the High Court,20 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.
ii Arbitration developments in local courts
The Malaysian courts have been asked to decide whether the presence of the word 'may' in an arbitration clause would render it mandatory to stay the proceedings in court in favour of arbitration. In Maya Maju (M) Sdn Bhd v. Putrajaya Homes Sdn Bhd,21 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 to further refer the dispute to arbitration: there was no option to refer the dispute to litigation.
Despite the courts' general willingness to give effect to an arbitration clause, the High Court in CHE Group Berhad v. Dato Kweh Team Aik22 was of the view that the mere appearance of the word 'arbitration' in the heading or title of a clause is not in itself conclusive that the clause amounts to arbitration agreement, as it does not automatically mean that there was an intention of the parties to refer the dispute to arbitration.
Under Section 4 of the 2005 Act, all disputes that parties have agreed to submit to arbitration are arbitrable unless the arbitration agreement is contrary to public policy or the subject matter is not capable of settlement through arbitration under Malaysian laws. While there is no definite list of subject matters that are not capable of settlement by arbitration under Malaysian law, matters generally considered non-arbitrable include disputes in relation to matrimonial and family law matters, criminal offences (including bribery and corruption), winding-up and insolvency, competition laws and public interest. In a dispute as regards the statutory right of a chargee to indefeasible title and to sell the charged security in the event of default by the chargor (provided by the National Land Code), the Federal Court in Arch Reinsurance Ltd v. Akay Holdings Sdn Bhd 23 held that the dispute triggered by the statutory notice of demand in Form 16D was not arbitrable under Section 4.
The 2018 Amendments introduced a provision on the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings (Section 41A). This provision was considered for the first time in the case of Dato' Seri Timor Shah Rafiq v. Nautilus Tug & Towage Sdn Bhd,24 where a non-party to the arbitration had obtained copies of documents prepared by a party to the arbitration in the course of the arbitration proceedings. The High Court held that Section 41A supersedes the common law principles of confidentiality in an arbitration and that the prohibition under this Section does not extend to non-parties to an arbitration.
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, the Federal Court decision in Jan De Nul (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & Anor25 clarified the high threshold in setting aside an arbitral award on grounds of public policy pursuant to Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.
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,26 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
In a recent decision by the Federal Court in Siemens Industry Software Gmbh & Co Kg (Germany) v. Jacob and Toralf Consulting Sdn Bhd, 27 the Court clarified that only the dispositive portion of the arbitral award, and not the reasoning or findings of the arbitral tribunal, is to be registered for the purposes of Section 38 of the 2005 Act. As the whole intent and purpose of Section 38 is to ensure that the reliefs granted by the arbitral tribunal can be enforced by way of execution proceedings through the courts, the reasoning or findings of the arbitral tribunal would not be relevant. The Federal Court also agreed that to allow the registration of the entire arbitral award would undermine the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings that comprise the cornerstone of arbitration.
The pro-enforcement position taken by the Malaysian courts is also seen in Tune Talk Sdn Bhd v. Padda Gurtaj Singh,28 where the Court of Appeal held that Sections 38 and 39 of the 2005 Act are mandatory and exhaustive with no room for any other substantive requirement to be fulfilled for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitration award, and that they override any common law principle. 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 recognition and enforcement process under Sections 38 and 39 read together with Order 69 of the Rules of Court 2012 is explained by the Federal Court in CTI Group Inc v. International Bulk Carriers SPA29 as a two-stage process starting with an ex parte proceeding (subject to the power of the court requiring service of the application) to obtain an order giving permission to enforce an arbitral award and a second inter partes proceeding stage where the court will deal with the application to set aside the ex parte order giving leave to enforce the arbitral award.
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 an arbitration agreement. In the case of Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram v. Nautical Supreme Sdn Bhd & Ors,30 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 were parties to a pending arbitration proceeding. The questions that arose in this case were whether a non-party may restrain arbitration proceedings and, in such circumstance, the applicable test.
The Court of Appeal held 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 held that 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 Limited 31 are satisfied. The test in Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor Bin Abdullah & Ors32 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. Such application by a non-party to the arbitration proceedings 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.
However, the Federal Court unanimously overruled the Court of Appeal's decision. The Federal Court held that as the appellant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and was not governed by the 2005 Act, the correct test to be applied was the Keet Gerald Francis test. The Federal Court further held that the possibility of inconsistent findings arising from a multiplicity of parallel proceedings was a material factor to be considered, and that it would be oppressive, vexatious and unconscionable for the arbitration proceedings to be allowed to the exclusion of the appellant, who was not a party and whose proprietary rights may be impugned in his absence.
Inherent jurisdiction of the courts
In the case of La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holdings Sdn Bhd (and another appeal),33 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 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. It was 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 this is not clearly spelled out in the 2005 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),34 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,35 a claim was brought under the Malaysia–United Kingdom BIT for non-payment of proceeds from the recovery of ship cargo in Malaysian waters. This claim was also subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The most recent reported investor–state dispute involving Malaysia as the respondent was in 2017 under the ASEAN Agreement for the Promotion and Protection of Investments 1987.36 However, parties have opted to settle the dispute.
iii OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS
The recent decisions of the Malaysian courts highlighted above and the amendments to the 2005 Act and the AIAC Arbitration Rules will continue to solidify Malaysia's position as an innovative, 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. However, the full impact of covid-19 to the arbitration scene in Malaysia remains to be seen. It has changed the way we live our daily lives, and the way in which arbitration is conducted or practiced is not spared. These changes may in fact outlast the pandemic. For instance, online hearings through videoconference via various available technology platforms could be the new norm moving forward. A new world will emerge from this health crisis, and it does not look like it will be business as usual for those in the arbitration community when the pandemic is eventually overcome.
1 Yap Yeow Han is a partner at Rahmat Lim & Partners.
2 House of Representatives, Parliamentary Hansard (7 December 2005) 105.
3 Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2011.
4 Arbitration (Amendment) (No.2) Act 2018.
5  1 CLJ 693. See also Kerajaan Malaysia v. Perwira Bintang Holdings Sdn Bhd  6 MLJ 126.
6 Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd  5 MLJ 417.
7 Press Metal Sarawak Sdn Bhd v. Etiqa Takaful Bhd  5 MLJ 417, paragraph 91.
8  5 MLJ 417, paragraph 88.
9  MLJU 232.
10 See Bumi Armada Navigation Sdn Bhd v. Mirza Marine Sdn Bhd  5 CLJ 652.
11  8 CLJ 628.
12 See also KNM Process Systems Sdn Bhd v. Lukoil Uzbekistan Operating Company LLC  MLJU 85.
13 See La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holding Sdn Bhd & Another  9 CLJ 593.
14 See Intelek Timur Sdn Bhd v. Future Heritage Sdn Bhd  1 CLJ 743.
15  1 CLJ 1.
16 See also Court of Appeal decision in Ajwa For Food Industries Co v. Pacific Inter-Link Sdn Bhd  2 CLJ 395.
17 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.
18  1 CLJ 19.
19 '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 29 April 2020. See also http://sfc.aiac.world/, accessed 9 April 2020.
20 One Amerin Sdn Bhd v. Asian International Arbitration Centre  1 LNS 904.
21  1 LNS 1245.
22  MLJU 782.
23  5 MLJ 186.
24  MLJU 405.
25  1 CLJ 1.
26 Sigur Ros Sdn Bhd v. Master Mulia Sdn Bhd  3 MLJ 608.
27  MLJU 363.
28  MLJU 67.
29  9 CLJ 499.
30  5 MLJ 1.
31  EWHC 1262.
32  1 MLJ 193.
33 La Kaffa International Co Ltd v. Loob Holdings Sdn Bhd (and another appeal)  MLJU 703.
34 Gruslin v. Malaysia (II), ICSID case No. ARB/99/3.
35 Malaysia Historical Salvors Sdn Bhd v. Malaysia, ICSID case No. ARB/05/10.
36 Boonsom Boonyanit v. Malaysia: https://www.italaw.com/cases/6198, accessed 29 April 2020. See also https://jusmundi.com/en/document/other/en-boonsom-boonyanit-v-malaysia-notice-of-dispute-monday-31st-july-2017, accessed 29 April 2020.