JUDGMENT

Aliza Sulaiman J:

Introduction

[1] The Court heard the following applications with the consent of the parties:

(a) the application by the Plaintiff in the Originating Summons ('O.S.') for, among others,:

(i) a declaration that the arbitration agreement originally entered between the Plaintiff and Posco Engineering Co Ltd ('PEN') is inoperative, including as against the Defendant (prayer 1) and further, or in the alternative, that the Defendant has abandoned or waived any rights to proceed with arbitration against the Plaintiff that it claims under the arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and PEN (prayer 2);

(ii) an order that the Defendant, its servants or agents be restrained from continuing or proceeding with the arbitration proceedings against the Plaintiff (prayer 3); and

(iii) a consequential order that the Defendant bear all costs in connection or arising from the arbitration against the Plaintiff (prayer 4)

('Declaration & Permanent Injunction Application');

(b) the application by the Plaintiff (encl 3) for an order that the Defendant, its servants or agents be restrained from continuing or proceeding with the arbitration proceedings against the Plaintiff pending disposal of the O.S., which was heard on an opposed ex parte basis ('Interim Injunction Application'); and

(c) the application by the Defendant (encl 15) for the proceedings to be stayed pending reference of the disputes between the parties to arbitration at the Asian International Arbitration Centre ('AIAC') under the arbitration proceedings already commenced pursuant to s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005 [Act 646] ('AA 2005') ('Stay Application').

[2] As regards encl 3, the Plaintiff's application for an Ad Interim Injunction was allowed on 26 March 2024.

[3] On 21 October 2024, after having given careful consideration to the affidavit evidence and oral and written submissions of the parties, I allowed prayers 1, 4 and 5 (for costs of the application) in the Declaration & Permanent Injunction Application and the Interim Injunction Application whilst the Stay Application was dismissed.

[4] Dissatisfied, the Defendant has appealed against the decision.

[5] These are my full grounds of judgment.

The Cause Papers

[6] The cause papers for each application are as follows:

>The Declaration & Permanent Injunction Application

(a) the Plaintiff's O.S. dated 22 March 2024 (encl 1);

(b) the Plaintiff's Affidavit In Support ('AIS') affirmed by its Senior General Manager (Legal), Mohd Roslan Bin Habibullah on 21 March 2024 (encl 2);

(c) the Defendant's Affidavit In Reply ('AIR') affirmed by its solicitor, Sivaram a/l Prasad on 22 April 2024 (encls 17 - 20);

(d) the Defendant's Notice of Intention To Use Affidavit (3) dated 22 April 2024 (encl 21);

(e) the Plaintiff's AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 23 May 2024 (encl 24); and

(f) the Plaintiff's Notice of Intention To Use Affidavit (1) on 29 May 2024 (encl 26).

The Interim Injunction Application

(a) the Plaintiff's Notice of Application dated 22 March 2024 (encl 3);

(b) the Plaintiff's AIS affirmed by the same deponent on 21 March 2024 (encl 4);

(c) the Defendant's Notice of Intention To Use Affidavit (2) dated 22 April 2024 (encl 22);

(d) the Plaintiff's AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 23 May 2024 (encl 25); and

(e) the Plaintiff's Notice of Intention To Use Affidavit (2) dated 29 May 2024 (encl 27).

The Stay Application

(a) the Defendant's Notice of Application dated 22 April 2024 (encl 15);

(b) the Defendant's AIS affirmed by the same deponent on 22 April 2024 (encl 16);

(c) the Defendant's Notice of Intention To Use Affidavit (1) on 22 April 2024 (encl 23);

(d) the Plaintiff's AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 23 May 2024 (encl 25);

(e) the Plaintiff's Notice of Intention To Use Affidavit (3) dated 29 May 2024 (encl 28); and

(f) the Defendant's AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 6 June 2024 (encl 29).

Salient Facts

[7] In the light of the upcoming analysis of the issues which arose for determination at the hearing of this suit