TUMPUAN MEGAH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v 1. ) ING BANK N.V 2. ) O.W. BUNKER FAR EAST (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

wa-24nccarb-24-07-2023 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 29 May 2025 • WA-24NCC(ARB)-24-07/2023 • 82 min read

46 cases cited (9 SG, 37 foreign)

Catchwords

Jurisdiction & Admissibility - Whether the Malaysian tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction or outside the scope of the arbitration agreement – The tribunal’s decision to bifurcate proceedings and address jurisdictional objections first was within its powers under Section 26 of the Arbitration Act and AIAC Rules. Res Judicata & Issue Estoppel – Whether the doctrine of res judicata and issue estoppel applied due to the prior London arbitration award – The Court affirmed that the London arbitration award was binding and that the Plaintiff’s claims in Malaysia were an attempt to relitigate the same issues, constituting an abuse of process. Natural Justice - Whether there was a breach of natural justice during the arbitral proceedings – The Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to present its case on jurisdiction. The tribunal’s refusal to rehear the merits did not amount to a denial of justice.

Judges (1)

Mohd Arief Emran bin Arifin Delivered

Counsel (7)

Skrine Firm Steven Thiru Firm Ananthan Nithya Moorthi Counsel Plaintiff Jane Chan Siew Thung Counsel Plaintiff Jeremiah Rais Counsel Plaintiff Muhammad Suhaib bin Mohamed Ibrahim Counsel Defendant Sharon Chong Tze Ying Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

ING BANK N.V Respondent O.W. BUNKER FAR EAST PTE LTD Respondent TUMPUAN MEGAH DEVELOPMENT Sdn Bhd Applicant

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act

s 37 s 37(2) s 39

Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)

s 18 s 26 s 39

UK Arbitration Act

s 103 s 67 s 72

UK Arbitration Act 1996

s 66 s 67 s 68 s 73

Cases Cited (46)

SG (3)

[2013] SGCA 57 [2020] SGCA 105 [2021] SGCA 9

SLR (6)

[2007] 1 SLR 597 [2012] 4 SLR 98 [2015] 3 SLR 488 [2015] 5 SLR 1104 [2019] 1 SLR 263 [2020] 2 SLR 453

UK (2)

[1999] 1 All ER 476 [2011] 1 AC 763

MY (35)

[2007] 3 CLJ 185 [2007] 4 MLJ 113 [2009] 6 MLJ 795 [2010] 2 CLJ 420 [2011] 6 MLJ 788 [2011] 7 MLJ 539 [2012] 3 CLJ 423 [2014] 11 MLJ 561 [2014] 9 MLJ 149 [2015] 1 CLJ 617 [2015] MLJU 77 [2016] 1 CLJ 218 [2016] 1 CLJ 281 [2016] 1 MLJ 681 [2017] 9 CLJ 273 [2018] 2 MLJ 636 [2018] 3 MLJ 608 [2018] 5 MLJ 204 [2018] 6 CLJ 199 [2018] 8 CLJ 291 [2018] MLJU 630 [2019] 1 CLJ 1 [2019] 2 MLJ 413 [2019] 2 MLJ 689 [2019] 6 CLJ 588 [2020] 12 MLJ 198 [2020] 5 CLJ 345 [2020] 9 CLJ 213 [2020] 9 CLJ 466 [2020] MLJU 476 [2023] 5 CLJ 677 [2024] 3 CLJ 18 [2025] 1 CLJ 17 [2025] 3 CLJ 771 [2025] 5 CLJ 630

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24nccarb-24-07-2023)