Arbitrators may draw on their expertise without breaching natural justice, emphasizing minimal interference by courts under the Arbitration Act.

Abdul Rahman Sebli FCJ:

[1] There were two appeals before us, namely Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-26-03- 2019(W) ("Appeal 26") and Civil Appeal No: 02(f)-27-03-2019(W) ("Appeal 27"). Both appeals arose from the same dispute between the parties which was arbitrated upon. The position taken by the appellant at the commencement of the hearing before us was that our decision on Appeal 26 will determine the outcome of Appeal 27, whichever way Appeal 26 goes.

[2] Appeal 26 relates to the setting aside of the arbitration award whilst Appeal 27 is against the refusal by the High Court to register the award as a judgment. Having heard arguments by both parties, both written and oral, we reserved judgment to a date to be fixed. We have now reached a unanimous decision and this is our judgment.

[3] The appellant had been granted leave to appeal on the following five questions of law, namely:

(1) "Whether the threshold requirement stipulated by s 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 to set aside an award as very low as set out in the cases of Petronas Penapisan (Melaka) Sdn Bhd v. Ahmani Sdn Bhd, 2016 MarsdenLR 1312 and Sigur Ros Sdn Bhd v. Master Mulia ; 2018 MarsdenLR 858 ; is indeed the correct test in the light of the various other provisions of the ?"

(The question asks whether the threshold under s 37 of the Arbitration Act 2005 ("the Act") is very low)

(2) "Whether the arbitrator who is an engineer who relies on his own knowledge of the construction industry in arriving at a decision on the quantum of loss of profit pursuant to a provision recognised by s 21(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 for an arbitrator to be able to draw on its own knowledge and expertise, can then be said to be in breach of the rules of natural justice within the meaning of s 37(1)(b)(ii) read together with subsection 2(b) of the Act?"

(The question asks whether an arbitrator who is an engineer and has knowledge of the construction industry could be in breach of the rules of natural justice by relying on such knowledge in arriving at his decision on the quantum of loss of profit)

(3) "Whether the act of an Arbitrator relying on his own knowledge and expertise on matters of evidence relating to an industry in which he is well acquainted will amount to a breach of natural justice within the meaning of s 37(1)(b)(ii) read together with subsection 2(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 ?"

(The question asks whether an arbitrator who is well acquainted with matters of evidence relating to the construction industry could be in breach of the rules of natural justice by relying on such matters of evidence)

(4) "Whether the precept of a breach of the rules of natural justice extends to the Arbitrator applying his own knowledge and expertise on an issue where the parties have led evidence on and which forms one of the very issues which the arbitral tribunal has to deal with, especially when the knowledge of the Arbitrator has an impact on the quality of evidence required for evaluation by the tribunal?"

(The question asks whether an arbitrator who applies his own knowledge and expertise in the construction industry to a fact in issue can be in breach of the rules of natural justice)

(5) "Whether the decision of the Arbitrator in making an award on what constitutes the value of completed works, and the basis on which such an assessment is to be made, can constitute a question of law arising out of the award?"

(The question asks whether the decision of an arbitrator on the value of completed works is a question of law)

[4] Questions 2, 3 and 4 are inter-related. Whichever way one looks at the questions, they invariably and ultimately lead to the question whether the arbitrator could, on matters of evidence relating to an industry in which he is well acquainted with, rely on his own knowledge and expertise in finding that "in the Malaysian construction industry, it is almost a norm when asked to indicate a profit and attendance for having to manage a nominated subcontractor, most co