Foreign Arbitral Award : Enforcement Confined to Arbitration Act or Extends to Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act?
ING Bank NV & Anor v Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd [2025] 8 CLJ 873
The primary issue in this case is whether a foreign arbitral award that has been converted into a judgment in the seat country may be enforced in Malaysia under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (“REJA”), or whether enforcement is confined to the Arbitration Act 2005 (“MAA”).
Consideration in Contract Variations: Fresh Consideration, Extrinsic Evidence and the Limits of Parties’ Intention
Kuala Dimensi Sdn Bhd v Port Kelang Authority [2025] 3 CLJ 497
Can contracting parties mutually agree to vary the terms of the agreement, specifically the agreement on consideration? If a variation of the consideration clause is executed with the agreement of contracting parties, can the varied clause nevertheless be rendered null and void under Section 26 of the Contracts Act 1950 (“CA 1950”)? Further, where a party alleges that consideration is absent, must consideration be proved solely within the four corners of the written agreement, or may it also be established through extrinsic evidence?
Setting Aside of Arbitration Award : Estoppel by Conduct and the Risks of Silence
One Amerin Residence Sdn Bhd v Ragawang Corporation Sdn Bhd [B-02(C)(A)-2128-12/2023]
Where multiple arbitrations are commenced under the same contract, disputes may arise not only on the merits but also on jurisdiction, including whether certain claims are arbitrable or have already been decided. Can a party who had earlier argued that a claim was premature later take the opposite position, asserting that the same claim had already been decided?
AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 – What’s new?
On 9 October 2025, the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC) have launched the AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, an updated set of rules to their predecessors. This major update would introduce six new rules/guidelines, including the AIAC Arbitration Rules 2026.
Company Law : Boundary Between Oppression Actions and Derivative Actions
Low Cheng Teik & Ors v Low Ean Nee [2024] 5 MLJ 579
While the derivative action under section 347 Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) allows shareholders to sue on behalf of the company, the oppression remedy under section 346 CA 2016 enables them to sue in their own capacity, but only if the harm suffered is distinct and personal.
Extension of Time : Time is of the Essence Despite Absence of an Express EOT Clause?
Savelite Engineering Sdn Bhd v Askey Media Technology Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1808
When a construction contract is silent on extensions of time, does this mean that time is no longer of the essence, or can the courts still imply an EOT clause to give effect to the parties’ intentions?
Setting Aside of Arbitration Award : Group of Companies Doctrine and Binding Non-Signatories to Arbitration Agreements
PT Wijaya Karya (Persero) TBK & Anor v Zecon Berhad & Anor [2025] CLJU 1220
It is not uncommon for a group of companies to deploy multiple entities within the group to carry out a project undertaken by one of its companies (the “Principal Company”). This often occurs when assistance from other group entities is required to support the performance of a contract signed by the Principal Company.
But what if the main agreement signed by the Principal Company contains an arbitration clause, while the other entities assisting in contract performance are not parties to that agreement?
CIPAA 2012: Is Retention Sum “Money Due or Payable” by the Principal Post-Termination of the Main Contractor?
Kinu Sdn Bhd v Kerajaan Malaysia (Jabatan Kerja Raya Malaysia) [W-01(C)(A)-523-08/2024]
Section 30 of the Construction Industry Payment and Adjudication Act 2012 (“CIPAA 2012”) enables a subcontractor to request direct payment from the principal or employer if the main contractor fails to pay the adjudicated amount in favour of the subcontractor, and where there is money due or payable by the employer to the main contractor. However, would the employer still be considered a “principal” for the purposes of Section 30 if the main contract restricts the main contractor from awarding the subcontract in the first place?
Stay Pending Arbitration : When Parties have the Option to Arbitrate or to Litigate in Court
Setia Awan Management Sdn Bhd v SPNB Aspirasi Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 982
What if the dispute resolution clause under the contract gives the parties the option to either arbitrate or litigate in Court? Can such a clause still be considered as an arbitration agreement? If so, would it be “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” due to lack of certainty?