The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural rules under the Arbitration Act, dismissing applications lacking substantiated claims of arbitrator bias or conflict of interest.

JUDGMENT

Lim Chong Fong J:

Introduction

[1] This is application to discharge and change an arbitrator in the course of arbitration proceedings.

[2] The Plaintiff is a private limited company and a subsidiary of the Syarikat Perumahan Negara Berhad which has been entrusted by the Malaysian Government to develop and provide affordable public housing.

[3] The Defendant is also a private limited company involved in the property development construction business.

Background and Preliminary

[4] By a development agreement dated 16 October 2014 ("Contract"), the parties agreed to develop and built service apartments and retail spaces on part of the land held under H.s (D) 119203, PT 9525 in Mukim Ampang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor Darul Ehsan ("Project"). The Contract contained the following dispute resolution clause:

20 Arbitration

All disputes, differences and questions which may arise at any time hereafter between the Turnkey contractor and SPNBASB regarding the true construction and interpretation of this Agreement or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties shall be referred to the decision of a single arbitrator in Malaysia to be agreed upon between the parties or failing agreement to be appointed upon the application of either party to the High Court of Malaya and such arbitration is to be in accordance to the Malaysia Arbitration Act 1952 (revised 1972) or any modifications or re-enactment thereto for the time being in force. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Kuala Lumpur and shall be conducted in the English Language. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding.

[5] There were disputes and differences that arose between the parties pursuant to the Contract on non-payment of the Defendant's interim payment claim no. 1 that resulted in the Defendant eventually terminating the Contract.

[6] As the result, the Defendant through its solicitors M/s Ahmad Deniel Ruben & Co ("ADR") on 25 February 2020 issued a notice of demand to the Plaintiff demanding for damages amounting to RM33,125,033.35 from the Plaintiff. There was no response from the Plaintiff.

[7] Consequently, the Defendant again through ADR issued a notice to commence arbitration pursuant to cl. 20 of the Contract to the Plaintiff and proposed 3 nominees including Datuk Professor Sundra Rajoo for the Plaintiff's selection as the arbitrator of the aforesaid disputes and differences.

[8] By a letter dated 7 August 2020 which was emailed on 10 August 2020 to ADR, the Plaintiff agreed to select Datuk Professor Sundra Rajoo ("Arbitrator") as the sole arbitrator to determine the aforesaid disputes and differences.

[9] Accordingly, ADR on 14 August 2020 wrote to the Arbitrator to jointly appoint him as the arbitrator to determine the aforesaid disputes and differences.

[10] The Arbitrator reverted to the parties on 16 August 2020 accepting the appointment and confirmed that there is no conflict of interest for him to act as the arbitrator.

[11] There was subsequently a preliminary meeting held by the Arbitrator and the parties on 26 August 2020 where the parties confirmed the terms of appointment issued by the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator thereafter issued his directions in respect of the conduct of the arbitration proceedings.

[12] The parties thereafter complied with the directions of the Arbitrator issued at the preliminary meeting of the arbitration proceedings particularly the submissions of their respective arbitral pleadings.

[13] On 1 December 2020, the Plaintiff's newly appointed solicitors M/s Zupadli & Edham ("ZE") who took over from M/s Nazri Yahya & Co ("NYC") wrote to the Arbitrator and ADR to inform that they have taken over conduct of the arbitration proceedings and enquired whether the arbitration proceedings have been registered with the Asian International Arbitration Centre ("AIAC"). Furthermore, ZE informed that there is a serious conflict of interest that has occurred between solicitor/counsel of the parties and requested that the ar