The entire arbitration award, including findings, must be registered under s 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005, not just the dispositive part.

[1] This is an appeal from the order of the High Court at Kuala Lumpur dated 26 May 2017. The High Court had made an order on the appellants motion pursuant to s 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (" AA 2005") and O 69 Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") to register only the dispositive portion of the Arbitration Award dated 8 May 2015 ("the Award") and declined to register the Award as a whole.

[2] Aggrieved with the decision not to register the Award as a whole, the appellants filed this appeal. The appeal was heard on 8 March 2018. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the written submissions, we allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. Our reasons for doing so now follow.

The Background

[3] The background facts are well set out in the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner ("JC") and in the submissions of the parties. The 1st and 4th appellants are companies incorporated in Malaysia. The 2nd and 3rd appellants are Malaysian citizens and directors of the 1st and the 4th appellants. The respondent is a company incorporated under the laws of Germany with a last known business address in Germany. It does not have any business presence in Malaysia.

[4] Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 31 July 2008 ("the Settlement Agreement"), the appellants and the respondent agreed to amicably resolve certain legal proceedings and to allow for a full and final settlement of all matters in issue between them. Any disputes in relation to the same were to be submitted for resolution through arbitration. The following arbitration clause was found in the Settlement Agreement:

"This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Malaysia law. All disputes at all material time arising out of or in connection with the present Agreement shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) by three arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules. Language of the proceedings shall be English. The seat of the arbitration shall be Singapore."

[5] Sometime in 2009, the appellants commenced an action against the respondent and five others via Suit No: S-22-129-2009 in the High Court of Kuala Lumpur ("Suit 2009"). In the said suit, the appellants claimed that the Settlement Agreement was entered into by reason of fraudulent misrepresentation by the respondent and/or its representatives.

[6] Before the suit could be proceeded with, the respondent obtained an order from this Court on 26 April 2011 to stay the proceedings in Suit 2009 in favour of arbitration on account of the arbitration agreement. The appellants motion for leave to appeal against the decision of this Court was dismissed by the Federal Court.

[7] Thereafter, the respondent initiated arbitration proceedings against the appellants in Singapore pursuant to the arbitration agreement clause where it sought for the following reliefs:

(a) Declaration as to the validity and finality of the Settlement Agreement entered into between the respondent and the appellants, and in the event of an opposite finding, the return to the respondent of the sum of EUR 3 million plus interest calculated from 8 August 2008;

(b) Declaration that the present Tribunal has sole jurisdiction to adjudicate on all disputes arising out of or in connection with the Settlement Agreement, and grant any reliefs, including reliefs sought by the appellants in Suit 2009;

(c) Declaration as to the final and conclusive nature of the waiver of