Back
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
LEE SWEE SENG, JCA
GISE KAM KWAN INTERNATIONAL TRADE LTD – Appellant
Versus
ANTARA STEEL MILLS SDN BHD – Respondent
The provided legal document primarily discusses issues related to the incorporation and validity of arbitration agreements within contractual arrangements, the doctrine of separability, and the interpretation of dispute resolution clauses in the context of contractual termination and settlement agreements. It emphasizes the importance of the parties' clear intentions regarding dispute resolution methods, whether through arbitration or litigation, and examines the legal language used in such clauses.
However, the document does not explicitly address the compatibility of arbitration with complex legal processes such as derivative actions. It focuses on the scope of arbitration clauses, their incorporation, and whether disputes should be resolved via arbitration or court proceedings, rather than on the procedural or substantive compatibility of arbitration with specific complex legal actions like derivative claims.
Therefore, based on the content provided, the case does not explicitly discuss or analyze the compatibility of arbitration with complex legal processes such as derivative actions.
[1] This appeal raises interesting and intriguing questions on whether an arbitration agreement, said to have a life of its own under the doctrine of reparability, would still be applicable when two main agreements ("Main Agreements") that contain the arbitration agreement are followed by a Termination and Settlement Agreement ("TSA") which has no express reference to the arbitration agreement. Instead, it has the expression in cl 6 thereof of a party beat liberty "to take legal action to claim" the amount spelt out in the TSA. There was also a reference in the same Clause to recovering "court fee" from the party liable to pay under the TSA.
[2] The issue of whether the arbitration agreement in the Main Agreements had been incorporated by reference into the TSA such as to make that arbitration clause part of the TSA would have to be considered. In this case, the reference to the Main Agreements was merely in the recital to the TSA.
[3] Ancillary to that would be whether the Main Agreements had been superseded by the TSA such that the latter is a stand-alone entire agreement. Would references "to take legal action to claim" amount to agreed to be outstanding
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
