Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] The plaintiff (appellant before us) and the defendant (respondent before us) entered into a contract. Later, a dispute arose between them in relation to that contract. They referred it to an arbitrator who, in his award, found for the defendant. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the award. It applied to have the award set aside for misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. "Misconduct" here is not used in a pejorative sense. In Sharikat Pemborong Pertanian & Perumahan v. Federal Land Development Authority [1971] 2 MLJ 210 at p 211, Raja Azlan Shah J (as His Royal Highness then was) said that misconduct:

... is used in its technical sense as denoting irregularity and not moral turpitude. It includes failure to perform the essential duties which are cast on an arbitrator as such, for instance, failure to observe the rules of natural justice, appearance of bias or partiality. It also includes any irregularity of action which is not consonant with the general principles of equity and good conscience. These illustrations are not meant to be exhaustive. But failure to analyse and appraise the evidence does not vitiate the award on the ground of misconduc