JUDGMENT

Suriyadi Halim Omar J:

The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the applicant"), and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent"), on 12 August 1996 executed an agreement for the construction of a 27 hole golf course at Gapam, Melaka. Embedded within the agreement was cl. 14 which provided for the referral of any disputes to an arbitrator, subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1952 (hereinafter called "the Act"). True to form, a dispute arose between them pertaining to payments. As there was a dispute as to whether the matter ought to be resolved before an arbitrator, or by the High Court, the matter ended up before Augustine Paul J. His Lordship on 7 February 1998 ordered that the matter be heard by an arbitrator. Being dissatisfied with that decision, the respondent subsequently filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal. In open Court before me, both parties admitted that not only did the Court not name the arbitrator, but no application for stay was applied for by the respondent let alone unilaterally ordered by the Court.

With the uncertainty of the forum cleared, to cut the matter short, the applicant instructed the arbitrator, one Mr. Khoo Choon