Originally from the Journal of Enforcement of Arbitration Awards

Preview Page

ABSTRACT

This article examines the legal framework for the enforcement of arbitral awards in Malaysia without delving into the particulars of Investor-State dispute settlement and sports arbitration. However, it reviews the recent amendments to the Arbitration Act 2005 [Act 646], that, inter alia, followed the 2006 revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law and enhanced Malaysia’s profile as a safe seat. This article also focuses on the interpretation of the relevant legislation by Malaysian courts and practical aspects of the enforcement process.

I. INTRODUCTION

According to the 2018 International Arbitration Survey,  “97% of respondents indicate[d] that international arbitration is their preferred method of dispute resolution” and enforceability of awards remains the most important advantage of this ADR mechanism. The ADR landscape is changing with efforts to streamline and improve conventional dispute resolution mechanism (e.g. SICC ; DIFC and AIFC  Courts), reform Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), and finalise of Draft Convention on International Settlement Agreement Resulting from Mediation.  The highlights of the 2018 International Arbitration Survey clearly indicate that arbitration is here to stay.