SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 1318

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
Q & M DENTAL GROUP (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
TYE CHEE WAH & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCC(ARB)-28-07/2024]



Petitioner Advocates:SM Shanmugam,Hooi Chung Wai,Hafiiz Rashid (PDK) ,Respondent Advocate: Michael Chow,Goh Keng Tat,Elisa Oyenz Jeson

Public policy arguments for setting aside an arbitral award must demonstrate significant injustice or irregularity, and enforcement is granted as of right when statutory requirements are satisfied.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration Act 2005 - Sections 38 and 39 - Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards - The Plaintiff's application for recognition of the Final Award was upheld, dismissing the Defendants' Setting Aside Application on grounds of public policy and enforceability - The court affirmed that the Defendants' claims did not meet the high threshold for setting aside an arbitral award based on public policy and that the formal requirements for enforcement were satisfied. (Paras 14, 25, 40)

(B) Public Policy - The court clarified that public policy arguments must demonstrate 'patent injustice' or 'serious irregularity' to succeed in setting aside an arbitral award, which was not established in this case. (Paras 15, 18)

(C) Enforcement - The court emphasized that once formal requirements under the Arbitration Act are met, enforcement of the award is granted as of right, and the Defendants' arguments regarding lack of enforceability were rejected. (Paras 30, 34)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff referred disputes to arbitration concerning breaches of agreements by the Defendants, leading to a Final Award in favor of the Plaintiff. The Defendants sought to set aside the Ex-Parte Order recognizing this award, claiming it was against public policy and unenforceable.

Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the Defendants' arguments, affirming the validity of the Final Award and the satisfaction of statutory requirements for its enforcement.

Issues: The main issues included the validity of public policy claims and the enforceability of the Final Award.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the public policy argument did not meet the necessary threshold to set aside the award and that compliance with statutory requirements for enforcement sufficed.

Result: Setting Aside Application dismissed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Ong Chee Kwan J:

Introduction

[1] On 14 October 2021, the Plaintiff, Q & M Dental Group (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd ("Q&M"), referred their disputes with the Defendants for arbitration ("Arbitration") to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") and a final award was made by the Arbitrator in favour of Q&M on 21 June 2024 ("Final Award").

[2] Enclosure 1 is the Originating Summons (ex-parte) filed by the Plaintiff for the recognition and enforcement of the Final Award ("OS") which Court allowed on 27 August 2024 ordering that the Final Award be recognised as binding and a judgment be entered in terms of the Final Award ("Ex-Parte Order").

[3] Enclosure 10 is the Notice of Application filed by the 1st, 2nd and 4th Defendants to set aside the Ex-Parte Order ("Setting Aside Application") on the grounds that the Final Award is said to be in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia and was not enforceable as at the date of the Ex-Parte Order.

[4] After hearing oral submissions from counsel, I dismissed the Setting Aside Application with costs on 11 December 2024.

Background Facts

[5] Prior to 11 March 2013, 1st, 2nd and the 3rd Defendants owned the subject company known as AR Dental Supplies Sdn Bhd ("AR Dental"). AR Dental is a company in the business of providing supplies of dental materials and equipment for dental surgeries as well as dental laboratories. The composition of shareholders of AR Dental at the material time was as follows:

[6] On 11 March 2013, by a Sale and Purchase Agreement ("SPA"), Q & M purchased an aggregate of 70% shareholding in AR Dental from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, for a consideration sum of RM & 8,400,000.00. Thereafter, the composition of AR Dental became as follows:

[7] On 5 July 2013, parties entered into a Shareholders' Agreement ("SHA") to set out their respective rights and obligations as shareholders in AR Dental. This was further supplemented by the 1st Supplemental Shareholders' Agreement dated 5 July 2013 ("1st Supplemental SHA") and 2nd Supplemental Shareholders Agreement dated 8 December 2014 ("2nd Supplemental SHA") (collectively referred to as "SHAs"). At the heart of the SHAs, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants guaranteed that Q&M shall receive 70% of the minimum After Tax Distributable Profit of the aggregate sum of RM 8,000,000.00 ie, RM 5,600,000.00, as dividends from AR Dental over a period of 6 years, failing which the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants would be liable to pay to Q & M the guaranteed dividend ("Dividend Guarantee Scheme").

[8] Further, as part of the 2nd Supplemental SHA, the 4th Defendant, a company owned by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, executed a Memorandum of Deposit ("Memorandum of Deposit") and agreed to deliver and deposit the required documents with Q&M in relation to a property owned by the 4th Defendant ("Property") as security for payment on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants arising from their obligations under the Dividend Guarantee Scheme.

[9] On 14 October 2021, Q&M referred its disputes to SIAC which culminated in the Arbitration and contended that the Defendants breached the SPA, SHAs and/or Memorandum of Deposit (collectively "Agreements"), in that, among others:

(a) the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to pay the outstanding sum of RM 5,353,998.00 as Dividends Payable under the Dividend Guarantee Scheme;

(b) the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to cause the 4th Defendant and the 4th Defendant failed to deliver and deposit with Q&M the resolution of the board of directors and shareholders of the 4th Defendant for the sale of the Property;

(c) the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to comply with Q&M's demands following its exercise of its rights pursuant to cl 15a 1 of the SHA to purchase Q & M's 70% shareholding in AR Dental for the sum of RM 8,400,000.00 plus interest of 10% per annum calculated from 5 July 2013 to the date of payment, and to cause AR Dental to repay to Q&M the outstanding shareholders' loans of RM 2,495,623.50.

[10] O

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top