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

2017 MarsdenLR 1260

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
GARDEN BAY SDN BHD – Appellant
Versus
SIME DARBY PROPERTY BERHAD – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Colin Victor George,James Edwin Pushparatnam ,Respondent Advocate: Raymond Mah,Prisilla Chong

Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JCA:

[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 arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present that party's case;

(iv) the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration;

(v) subject to subsection (3), the award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; or

(vi) the compositio

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top