[1] The appeal before us concerns an application to set aside an arbitration award dated 23 January 2015 under ss 37 and 42 of the Arbitration Act 2005 [Act 646]. In the course of submissions, learned counsel for the appellant confined the appeal to complaints under s 37, more specifically ss 37(1)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of Act 646. The complaint under these two provisions is that there is a breach of the rules of natural justice either during the arbitral proceedings or in connection with the making of the Award and that such breach is in conflict with the public policy of Malaysia. Consequently, the Award must be set aside.

[2] The learned JC agreed with the appellant and found that the learned Arbitrator had indeed committed two breaches of natural justice under s 20 read with ss 37( 1 )(b)(ii) and 37(2)(b) of Act 646 during the arbitration proceedings and during the deliberation and making of the Award. Despite such finding, the learned JC nevertheless dismissed the application on the groundthat the appellant was not prejudiced by the breaches.

[3] It is the appellant's argument that ss 37(1) and 37(2)(b) do not require proof of prejudice, whether actual or real, before the discre