MALAYSIA 9

Court of Appeal, Putrajaya, 24 May 2023, case nos. W-02(IM)(NCC)-2002-10 of 2021;W-02(IM)(NCC)-2003-10 of 2021;W-02(IM)(NCC)-2004-10 of 2021

(Macsteel International Far East ... Read more

Court of Appeal, Putrajaya, 24 May 2023, case nos. W-02(IM)(NCC)-2002-10 of 2021;W-02(IM)(NCC)-2003-10 of 2021;W-02(IM)(NCC)-2004-10 of 2021

(Macsteel International Far East Limited v. Lysaght Corrugated Pipe Sdn Bhd and Lysaght Galvanized Steel Bhd) 

24 - 05 - 2023

MALAYSIA 9

Yearbook Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, S. W. Schill (ed.), Vol. XLIX (2024)
Jurisdiction Malaysia
Original full text Full text decision MALAYSIA 9
Excerpt Excerpt decision MALAYSIA 9
Summary

The Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance decision that had denied the application to refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration. While courts should be cautious to interfere with the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal when assessing whether the arbitration agreement is valid, the High Court had found insufficient evidence in the present case that there was a valid arbitration agreement between the parties.
Related topics
220

The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.

 "Null and void", etc.
MALAYSIA 9