You are on page 1of 1

I found that grounds of challenging arbitral award are

section 37 and sections 42 under Arbitration Act 2005. In this case plaintiff ANALYSIS AND PARTIES
challenged under sec 37. However section 37 of Arbitration Act 2005 does not lay OPINION
Plaintiff :
down the guidelines in very precise wordings and thus let the courts’ hand very wide
in interpreting the situations when an arbitral award may be challenged as in the 1) Dato' Dr Muhammad Ridzuan bin Mohd Salleh
current case. As the plaintiff counsel satisfied the court with the cases decided earlier 2) Kenyir One Sdn Bhd
the award has been set aside by the court.
Defendant

1) Syarikat Air Terengganu Sdn Bhd


HELD
FACT

the court retains some residue of discretion in extending Dato' Dr Muhammad Ridzuan Bin
the time for a party to file an application to set aside an 30 •plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a joint venture shareholders'
Mohd Salleh & Anor V Syarikat Air
award exceeding the 90 days time frame from the date Decembe agreement to set up the second plaintiff
Terengganu Sdn Bhd[2012] 3 MLJ r 2003
the award is received
737
Awards and enforcement order set aside and each party 18 •the second plaintiff as the vendor entered into a water purchase agreement with
ordered to bear their own costs. October defendant as the purchaser
2004
•plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was in breach of the water purchase
ISSUE agreement ; failed to purchase water bottle
Dispute
Period •the dispute was referred to KLRCA

1) Whether the court has a discretion to extend time under s 37(4) of the Arbitration 8 May •sole arbitrator signed a statement of independence
Act 2005 2009
•s 37(4) of the AA 2005 is directory and not mandatory, in a limited sense only, the word used is
'may' and not 'shall' in the section •mid-way through the arbitration proceeding and before the making of the awards,
•comparison with previous Arbitration Act 1952 where the the time-frame to set aside an award the said arbitrator was appointed as a director of MBB (financier of JV Project)
22 July
was governed by O 69 r 4(1)(b) RHC 1980 2009 •he did not disclose to the plaintiff and defendant
•knowledge on the appointment of arbitrator as the director of MBB was not had earlier until
September 2011
•parties negotiated a settlemet upon the advice of the arbitrator which was
2 April recorded as consent order
2010
2) Whether extension of time should be granted for this application under s 37(1) and (2) of the Act
and the award set aside
•consent order on costs recorded as the fisrt plaintifff and second plaintiff had to
•have to consider the circumstances under which the fact of the directorship of the arbitrator came 2 July respective amount seperateley to the def
to be known to the plaintiffs 2010
•importance of independence and impartiality on the part of an arbitrator in the conduct of the
arbitral proceedings as in article 11 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
•justifiable doubt test and the golden rule for an arbitrator caught in impartiality and independence •enforcement and registration of award of the award filed by defendent through
circumstance is 'When in doubt, disclose!' 18 April OS
2011

3) Whether the consent award on costs having been registered in the High Court •Plaintiff discovered the said arbitrator was appointed of MBB in mid way of
Septemb arbitral proceeding and he did not disclose such fact to the parties
can be subsequently set aside er 2011
•to orders that have been obtained in breach of the rules of natural justice as such orders are
nullities and they can be successfully attacked in collateral proceedings ex debito justitae
•under O 92 r 4 of the RHC 1980 the court would have the power to set aside the enforcement
order of another High Court