JUDGMENT

Denys Roberts CJ:

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in this action against the decision of the Registrar given on 15 March 1993, in so far as the decision related to a stay of proceedings in this action, in order that it might be referred to arbitration.

The defendant, at the hearing, sought an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Registrar of 15 March that there was, on the pleadings and affidavits before her, a reasonable cause of action by the plaintiff.

The defendant's Counsel attributed the delay to the difficulty of obtaining proper instructions from the defendant, though it had been possible to speak to him during the past month when he was within the State.

It is a month since the Registrar's decision. I did not consider that there should be an extension of over a month granted to the defendant to allow him to file a notice of appeal.

Accordingly, I refused such an extension.

Statement of claim By its statement of claim, dated 11 January 1993, the plaintiff Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn. Bhd. ("RBA") made a claim against the defendant Philip Tan Kok Ming ("Tan") for moneys due to RBA under an agreement of 1 April 1986 between RBA and Borneo Leisure Sdn. Bhd. ("BL").

Under this agreement, BL was appointed as general sales agent for RBA for the sale of passenger and cargo transport.

It was a term of the agreement that BL should account for the monies collected on behalf of RBA and pay them over.

By 1 August 1992, the debt outstanding from BL to RBA was BD742,866.16, plus overdue charges of 1.5% per month. This was the amount of the claim.

Tan, in consequence of RBA's forbearance from suing for the outstanding sum and its continuing to appoint BL as its general sales agent, promised to pay "all outstanding debts due by Borneo Leisure Sdn. Bhd. to the plaintiff".

A conditional appearance was entered by Tan on 26 January 1993.

On 4 March 1993, Tan sought an order that -

(a) the writ and statement of claim of the plaintiff be struck out under O. 18 r. 18 (1) (a); (b) the proceedings be stayed for the purposes of arbitration.

The Registrar found (a) in favour of the plaintiff, noting that it was for the trial Judge to decide whether there was a guarantee by Tan of the debts of BL.

She stayed the proceedings in this claim and ordered that it be referred to an arbitrator under Clause 21 of the agreement of 1 April 1986.

RBA appeals against the stay of proceedings.

Arbitration

On 1 April 1986, RBA entered an agreement with BL, whereby the latter was appointed as general sales agent for RBA at various places in Sabah and Sarawak, set out in the agreement.

Clause 21 of this agreement was in these terms -

Any dispute under or arising out of this Agreement shall be referred to a single arbitrator agreed upon by both parties or failing which to arbitration in accordance with the provision of the Laws of Malaysia.

On 11 June 1991, Tan addressed a letter to RBA in which he stated -

Once again I wish to assure you that I will personally ensure that all outstanding debt owed by Borneo Leisure Sdn. Bhd. will be settled.

As to the five points of law in respect of the deed of guarantee and indemnity, I shall revert to you once I consult my legal adviser by 17 June 1991.

A deed of guarantee had been prepared by RBA's solicitor and was handed to Tan about 9 June. It was never executed or returned by Tan.

The Arbitration Act 1950 ("the Act"), is in force in Brunei. This was decided in Swee Private Ltd. v. Lim Kian Chai & Anor.[1965-1986) 1 BLR 235. Section 4 of that Act states -

4. If any party to a submission, or any person claiming through or under him, commences any legal proceedings in any Court against any other party to the submission, or any person claiming through or under him, in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may at any time after appearance, and before delivering any pleadings or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to that Court to stay the proceedings and that Court or a