COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
GARDEN BAY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination of questions of law involving arbitration agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. principles governing the setting aside of arbitration awards. (Para 4 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. interpretation of consent orders and their implications in arbitration. (Para 7 , 8 , 20) |
| 4. final ruling upholding the validity of the arbitration award. (Para 33) |
[1] The appellant/the claimant in the arbitration proceedings appeals against the decision of the learned High Court judge for allowing the respondent's applications under ss 37 and 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005 ( AA 2005). In the instant case, the entire arbitration award was set aside under s 37. Sections 37 and 42 of 2005 read as follows:
"Application for setting aside
37. (1) An award may be set aside by the High Court only if:
(a) the party making the application provides proof that:
(i) a party to the arbitration agreement was under any incapacity;
(ii) the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or, failing any indication thereon, under the laws of Malaysia;
(iii) the party making the application was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitra
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.