Click Here
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - Claim by stranger to agreement
Sinnadorai v New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd [1968] 2 MLJ 70, High Court, Ipoh
The plaintiff, Sinnadorai, was the owner of a lorry which was damaged in an accident. He claimed damages from the defendant, New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd, who were the insurers of the lorry. The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for the amount of money they had paid out to the plaintiff's insurers.
The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement which provided that any disputes arising out of the contract of insurance would be referred to arbitration. However, the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement.
The plaintiff applied to the High Court for an order directing the defendant to submit to arbitration. The defendant argued that they were not a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore could not be compelled to arbitrate.
The High Court held that the defendant was not a stranger to the arbitration agreement. The agreement was between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's insurers, but the defendant was a beneficiary of the agreement. The defendant had a right to enforce the terms of the agreement and therefore could be compelled to arbitrate.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - Dispute arising under separate agreement
Alagappa Chettiar v Palanivelpillai & Ors [1967] 1 MLJ 208, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiffs, Alagappa Chettiar and others, were the owners of a piece of land. They entered into a contract with the defendants, Palanivelpillai and others, to sell the land. The contract contained an arbitration clause.
The defendants later purported to sell the land to a third party. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract. The defendants counterclaimed for specific performance of the contract.
The plaintiffs applied to the High Court for an order staying the proceedings and referring the dispute to arbitration. The defendants argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because it arose under a separate agreement, namely the contract of sale with the third party.
The High Court held that the dispute was arbitrable. The arbitration clause in the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants was a valid and binding agreement. The dispute arose out of that agreement and was therefore subject to arbitration.
The 'Fuji Hoshi Maru'; United Asian Bank Bhd v M/V Fuji Hoshi Maru, Owners & Ors Interested [1981] 2 MLJ 333, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiffs, United Asian Bank Bhd, were the mortgagees of a ship, the "Fuji Hoshi Maru". The defendants, the owners of the ship, failed to make the mortgage payments. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for the mortgage money.
The defendants counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. The contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants contained an arbitration clause.
The plaintiffs applied to the High Court for an order staying the proceedings and referring the dispute to arbitration. The defendants argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because it arose out of a separate agreement, namely the mortgage deed.
The High Court held that the dispute was arbitrable. The arbitration clause in the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants was a valid and binding agreement. The dispute arose out of that agreement and was therefore subject to arbitration.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - Dispute as to existence of contract
New India Assurance Co Ltd v Lewis [1967] 1 MLJ 156, Federal Court, Singapore
The plaintiff, New India Assurance Co Ltd, were the insurers of a lorry. The lorry was involved in an accident and the plaintiff paid out damages to the third party who was injured. The plaintiff then sued the defendant, Lewis, who was the driver of the lorry, for the amount of money they had paid out.
The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for a declaration that there was no contract of insurance between him and the plaintiff.
The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement which provided that any disputes arising out of the contract of insurance would be referred to arbitration. However, the defendant argued that the agreement was void because there was no contract of insurance between him and the plaintiff.
The Federal Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding. The agreement was between the plaintiff and the defendant, even though the defendant had not signed it. The defendant had accepted the terms of the agreement by taking out insurance with the plaintiff.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - Matter determined by earlier arbitration
Tee Liam Toh v National Employer's Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd [1964] MLJ 320, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiff, Tee Liam Toh, was a lorry driver. He was injured in an accident while driving a lorry for his employer. The plaintiff claimed damages from his employer.
The employer denied liability and counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. The contract between the plaintiff and the employer contained an arbitration clause.
The plaintiff applied to the High Court for an order staying the proceedings and referring the dispute to arbitration. The employer argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because it was the same dispute that had been determined by an earlier arbitration.
The High Court held that the dispute was not arbitrable. The earlier arbitration had determined that the employer was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to bring a fresh claim against the employer.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - No dispute
ELF Petroleum SE Asia Pte Ltd v Winelf Petroleum Sdn Bhd [1986] 1 MLJ 177, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiffs, ELF Petroleum SE Asia Pte Ltd, were the owners of a trademark. The defendants, Winelf Petroleum Sdn Bhd, were using the trademark without permission. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for an injunction to stop them from using the trademark.
The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that they were the rightful owners of the trademark.
The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement which provided that any disputes arising out of the contract between them would be referred to arbitration. However, the plaintiffs argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because there was no dispute between the parties.
The High Court held that the dispute was not arbitrable. The arbitration agreement was between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but there was no dispute between them. The defendants had not used the trademark without permission. The plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to an injunction.
Sinnadorai v New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd [1968] 2 MLJ 70, High Court, Ipoh
The plaintiff, Sinnadorai, was the owner of a lorry which was damaged in an accident. He claimed damages from the defendant, New Zealand Insurance Co Ltd, who were the insurers of the lorry. The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for the amount of money they had paid out to the plaintiff's insurers.
The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement which provided that any disputes arising out of the contract of insurance would be referred to arbitration. However, the defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement.
The plaintiff applied to the High Court for an order directing the defendant to submit to arbitration. The defendant argued that they were not a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore could not be compelled to arbitrate.
The High Court held that the defendant was not a stranger to the arbitration agreement. The agreement was between the plaintiff and the plaintiff's insurers, but the defendant was a beneficiary of the agreement. The defendant had a right to enforce the terms of the agreement and therefore could be compelled to arbitrate.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - Dispute arising under separate agreement
Alagappa Chettiar v Palanivelpillai & Ors [1967] 1 MLJ 208, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiffs, Alagappa Chettiar and others, were the owners of a piece of land. They entered into a contract with the defendants, Palanivelpillai and others, to sell the land. The contract contained an arbitration clause.
The defendants later purported to sell the land to a third party. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract. The defendants counterclaimed for specific performance of the contract.
The plaintiffs applied to the High Court for an order staying the proceedings and referring the dispute to arbitration. The defendants argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because it arose under a separate agreement, namely the contract of sale with the third party.
The High Court held that the dispute was arbitrable. The arbitration clause in the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants was a valid and binding agreement. The dispute arose out of that agreement and was therefore subject to arbitration.
The 'Fuji Hoshi Maru'; United Asian Bank Bhd v M/V Fuji Hoshi Maru, Owners & Ors Interested [1981] 2 MLJ 333, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiffs, United Asian Bank Bhd, were the mortgagees of a ship, the "Fuji Hoshi Maru". The defendants, the owners of the ship, failed to make the mortgage payments. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for the mortgage money.
The defendants counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. The contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants contained an arbitration clause.
The plaintiffs applied to the High Court for an order staying the proceedings and referring the dispute to arbitration. The defendants argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because it arose out of a separate agreement, namely the mortgage deed.
The High Court held that the dispute was arbitrable. The arbitration clause in the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants was a valid and binding agreement. The dispute arose out of that agreement and was therefore subject to arbitration.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - Dispute as to existence of contract
New India Assurance Co Ltd v Lewis [1967] 1 MLJ 156, Federal Court, Singapore
The plaintiff, New India Assurance Co Ltd, were the insurers of a lorry. The lorry was involved in an accident and the plaintiff paid out damages to the third party who was injured. The plaintiff then sued the defendant, Lewis, who was the driver of the lorry, for the amount of money they had paid out.
The defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for a declaration that there was no contract of insurance between him and the plaintiff.
The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement which provided that any disputes arising out of the contract of insurance would be referred to arbitration. However, the defendant argued that the agreement was void because there was no contract of insurance between him and the plaintiff.
The Federal Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding. The agreement was between the plaintiff and the defendant, even though the defendant had not signed it. The defendant had accepted the terms of the agreement by taking out insurance with the plaintiff.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - Matter determined by earlier arbitration
Tee Liam Toh v National Employer's Mutual General Insurance Association Ltd [1964] MLJ 320, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiff, Tee Liam Toh, was a lorry driver. He was injured in an accident while driving a lorry for his employer. The plaintiff claimed damages from his employer.
The employer denied liability and counterclaimed for damages for breach of contract. The contract between the plaintiff and the employer contained an arbitration clause.
The plaintiff applied to the High Court for an order staying the proceedings and referring the dispute to arbitration. The employer argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because it was the same dispute that had been determined by an earlier arbitration.
The High Court held that the dispute was not arbitrable. The earlier arbitration had determined that the employer was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to bring a fresh claim against the employer.
Arbitration - Agreement - Arbitrability - No dispute
ELF Petroleum SE Asia Pte Ltd v Winelf Petroleum Sdn Bhd [1986] 1 MLJ 177, High Court, Kuala Lumpur
The plaintiffs, ELF Petroleum SE Asia Pte Ltd, were the owners of a trademark. The defendants, Winelf Petroleum Sdn Bhd, were using the trademark without permission. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for an injunction to stop them from using the trademark.
The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that they were the rightful owners of the trademark.
The parties had entered into an arbitration agreement which provided that any disputes arising out of the contract between them would be referred to arbitration. However, the plaintiffs argued that the dispute was not arbitrable because there was no dispute between the parties.
The High Court held that the dispute was not arbitrable. The arbitration agreement was between the plaintiffs and the defendants, but there was no dispute between them. The defendants had not used the trademark without permission. The plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to an injunction.
- THE e LAW MATRIX
- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
- AGENCY
- ANIMALS
- ARBITRATION
- ARMY CASES
- ARMS AND AMMUNITION
- AUCTIONS
- BAILMENT
- BANISHMENT
- BANKING
- BETTING AND GAMING
- BILLS OF SALE
- BURIALS
- CARRIAGE BY AIR AND LAND
- CHARITIES
- CHILDREN/YOUNG PERSONS
- CHINESE LAW AND CUSTOM
- CITIZENSHIP
- CIVIL LAW
- CIVIL LAW ACT
- CONFLICT OF LAWS
- CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
- CONTRACT
- COPYRIGHT
- COSTS
- CRIMINAL LAW
- CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
- CURRENCY
- CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
- DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURY/DEATH
- DEBTORS
- DEFAMATION
- ELECTIONS
- EMERGENCY LAWS
- LAW SOFTWARE,AI & DIGITAL LIBRARY NEWS
