Arbitration agreements are valid unless expressly rendered void by statute or public policy, and courts must respect party autonomy in arbitration matters.

Mohd Arief Emran Arifin J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

(APPLICATION BY THE 1^st DEFENDANT TO STAY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 10ARBITRATION ACT

(Enclosure 272)

A. Introduction

[1]The 1^st Defendant, Asia Plantation Capital Pte Ltd, seeks to stay the proceedings against them in favour of the arbitration agreement.

[2]During the course of the hearing of this application, the Plaintiffs’ counsel agrees and concedes that the following Plaintiffs have entered into separate lease agreements with the 1^st Defendant:

(i)Plaintiffs 3,4,5,6, 7, 8,9, 10,11,12,13,14,151, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 25, 36, 27, 28, 29, 75, 40, 41, 42, 43, 153, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 154, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 156, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 157, 75, 158, 76, 77,78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 116, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 159, 100, 160, 101, 102, 161, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134,135, 136, 139, 140, 162, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149 and 150.

[3]The agreement to arbitrate with the 1^st Defendant contained in the aforesaid agreements are as follows: -

Agreement to Arbitrate Singapore Seat

Sample 1

Sample 2

[4]The Plaintiffs’ claim arises out of various agreements that were executed between the Plaintiffs, the 1^st Defendant, Asia Plantation Capital Berhad, and APC Plantations Sdn Bhd. Essentially, the Plaintiffs claim that they were wrongly lured to invest in a scheme to lease out lands that were utilised to plant Agarwood trees. Substantial sums of monies were paid by the Plaintiffs to the 1^st Defendant, and they now claim that the scheme was wrongful, and the monies should be returned to them.

[5]The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, including the directors of the companies and even employees of the companies, have committed the following alleged wrongs that should be rectified by this Court: -

(i)Breaches of the Companies Act and the Interest Scheme Act

- failure to comply with division 5 of Part IV of the Companies Act 1965

- failure to obtain the required approvals by the Companies Commission of Malaysia

- failure to set up the required trust companies, trust accounts, and management companies

- failure to comply with the requirements of the above referred statuts

(ii)Fraud and misrepresentation by all of the Defendants in selling the investment scheme to the Plaintiffs

(iii)Breach of Trust and / or Fraudulent Breach of Trust by all Defendants

(iv)Conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiffs by unlawful means

(v)Breach of Contract

(vi)Unjust Enrichment

(vii)Piercing the corporate veil

B. Applicable LawGeneral Rule - Court to Respect Parties Intention as it appears in the agreement to arbitrate

[6]It is trite law that if the subject matter in dispute falls within the scope of the agreement to arbitrate then this Court shall have the claim against the said Defendant be stayed and refer the dispute to arbitration. This is following the intention of Parliament as it appears in section 10 Arbitration Act

[7]In determining whether there exists an arbitration agreement this Court must consider the said agreement to arbitrate as being a separate agreement independent of the agreement between parties. This fiction is necessitated by law. The agreement to arbitrate is seen as a separate agreement standing on its own. I refer to the decision of Lee Swee Seng JCA in Gise Kam Kwan International Trate Ltd v Antara Steel Mills Sdn Bhd 2024 MarsdenLR 1402 : -

“Whether The Doctr