TUMPUAN MEGAH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) ING BANK N.V. 2. ) O.W. BUNKER FAR EAST (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD
wa-24nccarb-30-08-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 18 August 2025 • WA-24NCC(ARB)-30-08/2024 • 37 min read
40 cases cited
(4 SG, 36 foreign)
Catchwords
Section 37 Arbitration Act – Setting Aside Arbitral Award – Whether the Plaintiff successfully established any of the statutory grounds under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), 37(2)(a)(i), or 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 2005 to justify setting aside the costs award. Public Policy Challenge – Whether the costs award conflicted with the public policy of Malaysia, including allegations of fraud, bias, or procedural unfairness. Natural Justice in Arbitration - Natural Justice and Right to Be Heard – Whether the Plaintiff was denied a fair opportunity to present its case on costs, and whether the Tribunal’s conduct breached the rules of natural justice. Tribunal’s Jurisdiction to Award Costs Post-Award – Functus Officio Doctrine – Whether the arbitral tribunal was functus officio after issuing a partial award, and whether it retained jurisdiction to determine and allocate costs. Res Judicata in Arbitration – Abuse of Process – Effect of Res Judicata and Abuse of Process – Whether the Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to re-litigate issues already decided amounted to an abuse of process, justifying the Tribunal’s full costs award.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
TUMPUAN MEGAH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) ING BANK N.V. 2. ) O.W. BUNKER FAR... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated August 18, 2025 (citation: wa-24nccarb-30-08-2024). The case was decided by Mohd Arief Emran bin Arifin.
Key issues: Public Policy Challenge – Whether the costs award conflicted with the public policy of Malaysia, including allegations of fraud, bias, or procedural unfairness..
What was the outcome of TUMPUAN MEGAH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) ING BANK N.V. 2. ) O.W. BUNKER FAR...?
TUMPUAN MEGAH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. v 1. ) ING BANK N.V. 2. ) O.W. BUNKER FAR... is a High Court decision dated August 18, 2025. The case was heard by Mohd Arief Emran bin Arifin. See the full judgment for details.
Statutes Cited
Arbitration Act
s 37
Arbitration Act 2005 (Cap 646)
Rules of Court 2012
UK Arbitration Act 1996
s 68
Cases Cited (40)
SG (2)
[2008] SGHC 11 [2011] SGCA 29
SLR (2)
[2007] 1 SLR 597 [2012] 4 SLR 98
UK (3)
[1989] 2 All ER 751 [2002] 4 All ER 775 [2023] EWHC 82
MY (33)
[1999] 5 MLJ 137 [2003] 6 CLJ 251 [2007] 3 CLJ 185 [2007] 4 MLJ 113 [2009] 6 MLJ 795 [2010] 2 CLJ 420 [2011] 7 MLJ 539 [2012] 2 MLJ 333 [2012] 3 CLJ 423 [2014] 9 MLJ 149 [2015] 1 CLJ 617 [2015] MLJU 77 [2016] 1 CLJ 218 [2016] 1 CLJ 281 [2016] 1 MLJ 681 [2016] MLJU 1250 [2017] 8 CLJ 667 [2018] 10 MLJ 187 [2018] 2 MLJ 636 [2018] 3 MLJ 608 [2018] 6 CLJ 199 [2018] 8 CLJ 291 [2018] MLJU 630 [2019] 1 CLJ 1 [2019] 2 MLJ 413 [2019] 6 CLJ 588 [2019] MLJU 1755 [2020] 12 MLJ 198 [2020] 9 CLJ 213 [2020] 9 CLJ 466 [2020] MLJU 476 [2021] MLJU 413 [2022] MLJU 16
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.
Read on eJudgmentSource: eJudgment (wa-24nccarb-30-08-2024)