newsletter - miarbmiarb.org/userfiles/miarb_newsletter_2013_web2.pdf · this is the 2nd newsletter...
TRANSCRIPT
KDN No.: PP8686/07/2013(032886)
MIArbN E W S L E T T E R
TheNewsletterof theMalaysianInstitute of Arbitrators
ContentsNote From President 1
Calendar of Events
2012–2013 3
Overcoming Evidential
Difficulties in Delay Analysis 4
The Case for Indemnity Costs
in Opposing Arbitral Awards 8
CPD Talk by Mr Kevin Reeves 12
Membership Upgrade Course 13
The Big Picture Incorporation
of an Arbitration Clause by
Inference? 14
List of MIArb Panel Arbitrators 20
List of New Members/
Upgrade for Session July
2012 to April 2013 26
Note FromPresident
Editorial Team: Shanthi Supramaniam,
Hor Shirley
Joshua Chong
Contributors: Ow Sau Pin, Lee Shih, Nereen Kaur Veriah
Dear Members,This will be my last message to you as president before my successor is
elected at our Annual General Meeting in June 2013.
My tenure has been challenging, and stressful but at the same time it was
interesting, enjoyable, rewarding and satisfying. The credit for the positive
parts these past 2 years goes to a wonderful council and secretariat with
whom I have had the privilege and honour of working with.
This is the 2nd Newsletter that has been produced by Shanthi, our editor,
and I must congratulate her on a job well done and thank her and her
team for the tireless effort that has been put in. This newsletter contains
interesting articles on the immunity of arbitral institutions, overcoming
evidential difficulties and indemnity costs which I hope you will find
informative and useful.
The recent evening talk we organised where Kevin Reeves spoke on
“What the Courts are Now Saying About Delays” was a resounding
success where we actually ran out of chairs to seat our guests. Our
membership upgrade course which followed our fast track fellowship
programme was also well received and I welcome all our new members
and wish that they have a fruitful and rewarding time with us.
As of May 2013, we kickstarted the “Joint Courses on Construction Law
and ADR,” organised jointly by the Institution of Engineers Malaysia, the
Royal Institution of Surveyors Malaysia, the Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia
and ourselves where a series of 5 courses will be held month on month
and where we will present on the course on Arbitration. I also take this
opportunity to welcome Mr Lam Ko Luen, Mr HT Ong and Captain Julian
Brown who have been admitted into our panel of arbitrators this year.
It has been my pleasure to serve MIArb and I encourage those who wish
to play a bigger role in the institute to run for office.
Chang Wei Mun
President
The Malaysian Arbitration Act 2005(Amended 2011)An Annotation
by Datuk Sundra Rajoo
Key features
The book explains both the background and philosophy of the Arbitration Act 2005 with its background in the UNCITRAL ModelLaw on International Commercial Arbitration. It contains a compilation of current judicial and academic references that helpelucidate the topic and implementation of the Act.
Part 1: Introduction(1) A Brief Survey(2) The Malaysian Experience(3) The Legislative Reforms of 2005(4) UNCITRAL Model Law(5) The 2011 Reforms(6) The Format of the Act(7) Use of Case Laws and Legal Text
Part 2: Annotations to the Arbitration Act 2005 (1) Arbitration Act 2005 and its Annotations(2) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial
Arbitration 1985 and its Explanatory Note by the UNCITRAL Secretariat (*the text reproduced)
Part 3: KLRCA and commentaries on the rules(1) The Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration(2) Services and Functions of KLRCA (3) KLRCA’s Rules: A commentary
(a) The genesis and conception of the rules (b) Current enhancements to the rules (c) KLRCA Arbitration Rules(d) KLRCA i-Arbitration Rules(e) KLRCA Fast Track Arbitration Rules
Appendix(1) Rules for Arbitration of the Regional Centre for
Arbitration Kuala Lumpur(2) UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules(3) Fast Track Rules of the Regional Centre for Arbitration
Kuala Lumpur(4) Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Arbitral Awards
Table of contents
RM
125.00
ISB
N 9
78-9
67-
40
0-1
42-
1
This is a handy one volume reference for an overview on Arbitration in Malaysia, it is the first publication updated with the 2011legislative reforms. The book starts with a commentary on the overall Malaysian experience in arbitration, relevant legislative reforms, the UNCITRAL Model Law, the 2011 legislative reforms and the use of case law, legislation and codes. This is followedby an in-depth annotation of the Arbitration Act 2005 and the reproduction of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The last part of thisbook provides a write up about the KLRCA and their commentary on the relevant Rules. This should be a first point of referencefor anyone wishing to understand how arbitration works in Malaysia.
Alternatively, please contact our Helpdesk at Tel: 1800-88-8856 or Email: [email protected] or Twitter (Helpdesk): @HelpLNMY
http://twitter.com/LexisNexisMY/ http://facebook.com/LexisNexisMalaysia/
Order Now! via our eBookstore @ www.lexisnexis.com/store/my
3
Calendar ofEvents2012�201320 & 21 October 2012MIArb Membership Upgrade Course
Venue: MIArb Secretariat
The course was successfully held with attendance of 17 participants. Candidates were given oralassessment at the end of the course. Speakers were Mr Chang Wei Mun, Mr Jonathan Yoon,Mr Sanjay Mohanasundram, Mr Rajendra Navaratnam, Mr Kevin Prakash, Mr Ooi Huey Miin,Ms Ow Sau Pin and Ms Shanthi Supramaniam.
28 February 2013A talk on “What the Courts are Now Saying About Delays?”
Speaker:Mr Kevin Reeves
BSc, MSc (Construction Law & Arbitration), MRICS, MCIArb
RO Consulting Sdn Bhd (now known as ReevesOw Consulting Sdn Bhd)
Venue: MIArb Secretariat
The talk saw an overwhelming response from participants. Participants came from variousindustries – contractors, claims consultants, developers, engineers, quantity surveyors,architects, lawyers and etc. The talk explored the subject with respect to the methodsand core principles of delay analysis based on what the courts are now saying inconstruction and engineering projects.
4 March 2013, 4.00pmCourtesy Visit to RISM
Venue: Bangunan Juruukur, 3rd Floor, No. 64-66 Jalan 52/4, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Attended by Chang Wei Mun, Sanjay Mohanasundram, Lam Ko Luen, A Mahadevan
13 March 2013, 3.00pmCourtesy Visit to IEM
Venue: Bangunan Ingenieur, No. 60/62 Jalan 52/4, 46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor
Attended by Chang Wei Mun, Kevin Prakash, Hor Shirley, A. Mahadevan
Ongoing & Upcoming Events17 & 18 May 2013 and onwards Short Courses on Construction Law & ADR
(Jointly organised by IEM/PAM/RISM/MIArb)
May to September 2013KLRCA’s Series of Evening Talks
Nominated speakers: Mr Chang Wei Mun, Mr Lam Ko Luen, Mr Kevin Prakash &
Mr Ooi Huey Miin
22 June 20137th RAIF Conference in Philippines
Venue: Shangri-La Hotel, Cebu Philippines
4
OvercomingEvidentialDifficultiesin Delay Analysisby Ow Sau PinBSc (Hons) LLB (Hons) MRICS
MMIArb/ MIArb Council Member,
Director, ReevesOw Consulting Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur
Last year the judgment on Walter Lilly &
Company Ltd v MacKay and Anor [2012]
EWHC 1773 (TCC) was published to
reveal what was doubtlessly a highly
dramatic dispute that any participants in the
construction industry can surely relate to. Mr
Justice Akenhead articulately addressed the
matters disputed with evidence being presented
by more than a dozen witnesses over two weeks
of hearings.
In the beginning and again in the middle of his
comprehensive award, Mr Justice Akenhead
described the project as ‘a disaster waiting to
happen’ and from the facts of the case, no other
description could be more apt. Walter Lilly was
contracted by MacKay to build and fit-out three
upmarket residential units in London. The contract
had ambiguous terms suggesting a fair share of
design responsibilities of which Walter Lilly
repeatedly sought clarification throughout the
project without much success. Numerous critical
design and construction issues were not provided
or resolved in a timely manner. The entire project
was fraught with late instructions, indecision, poor
coordination and significant client interference, all
typical ingredients to any challenging projects. In
the end there were excessive time and cost
overruns, a fuming client and an array of other
legal suits involving various other parties in the
project.
Amid the extensive sets of facts presented, Mr
Justice Akenhead was able to give helpful
guidance in his decision pertaining to the evidence
given on the various claims.
Tracking reality Mackay and the architect had, during the course
of the works, believed that the lift shaft was
constructed grossly out of alignment. At that time,
several other critical issues remained unresolved
but the lift shaft was thought to be the most
significant of all other delaying events. The lift shaft
was short listed with a handful of other items that
were considered major causes of delay, each
cause embroiled in equally difficult and uncertain
positions with regard to where delay responsibility
lies. However on the issue of the lift shaft, a
significant sum of money was being withheld by
the client as a result of his extreme dissatisfaction
5
over the allegedly defective work. Therefore, it
was no surprise that Walter Lilly had firstly
brought the dispute before an adjudicator during
the concurrency of the work. The adjudicator
decided that the defects were ‘grossly
exaggerated’ and reduced the sum withheld by
more than 75%. That meant Walter Lilly was
effectively absolved from the perceived and
mistaken belief that its culpability was holding up
the works.
Nevertheless in revisiting the evidence, presented
before the Technology and Construction Court
(TCC), the expert witness for the defendants did
not consider accommodating this fact to
retrospectively fit into his delay analysis. If it had
been decided by the adjudicator that the lift was
indeed grossly out of alignment, the time to
rectify such non-conformance would have taken
anytime from six to nine months and at that
juncture, it would have constituted the longest
sequence of works to completion, hence a
critical delay. However, the parties later accepted
that the rectification need not be as extensive as
initially thought therefore Mr Justice Akenhead
considered that that the lift shaft was totally
irrelevant in any factual analysis of what caused
the delay.
Parties frequently adopt a ‘full-battle’ mode in
dispute resolution, which is not only costly but
has little value in resolving the actual issues in
question. The judge enlightens us in this case
that not all evidence is equal for the purpose of
factual analysis; parties should always check the
relevance of evidence presented. For that he was
immensely complimentary of the claimant’s
expert in carrying out a month-by month reality
check on all the programmes, or whatever few of
them submitted as evidence, during the critical
periods.
A lesson one canalso usefully extractfrom the case is the
importance oftracking or updating
programmes nomatter how
discouraging orirrepressible the
situation hasbecome at thematerial time.
6
The final daysA lesson one can also usefully extract from
the case is the importance of tracking or
updating programmes no matter how
discouraging or irrepressible the situation has
become at the material time. Both the experts
in the case agreed that when the project was
delayed over a year beyond the original
completion date there was ‘no programme of
all the works outstanding at that date which
could sensibly be used as a baseline in a
retrospective programme analysis.’
On the facts of this case, towards the last six
months of completion, parties had become
increasingly despondent with the elusive goal
of completion given the uncertain nature of
works required. There were deeply-
entrenched disagreements as to the
standards required to be met and therefore
the time necessary to comply with the differing
standards. It was of no help that the client
became increasing demanding and hostile
even to his team of consultants thereby
causing less attention to be cast on a
necessary tracking programme.
The lack of reliable updated programmes
during a project is not an uncommon
situation. The parties in this case would have
done well to give serious thought to updated
programmes to be evidence in any
subsequent dispute resolution. This can take
one of two forms, a revised programme
indicating completed tasks with as-built dates
together with outstanding works and durations
required oor simply a completion programme
setting out only the actual outstanding tasks
with a reasonable estimate of individual
completion periods, taking into consideration
the circumstances and challenges
surrounding each individual task.
Although a revised programme would have
been a more compelling record, a completion
programme nevertheless would have provided
adequate and sensible evidence for
retrospective delay analysis. In a situation
where there is a severe scarcity of evidence,
even the simplest evidence can shed some
light on the dispute. Provided of course, it is
relevant and consistent with reality.
Stating facts accurately Another major delay disputed in this case was
the stain to be applied to joinery work.
Although the stain was solely selected by the
defendants, it later became a major grievance
when it did not meet the defendants’
expectation.
After an initial colour and finish was applied on
a door panel as a mock-up, the defendants
appeared to have accepted it. It was also
recorded in a following meeting that the
claimant was to proceed with the remaining
surfaces accordingly. Despite numerous
inspections that took place without complaints
and after the staining work was largely
completed, the defendants later claimed that
the colour was ‘too dark’ and were
dissatisfied. The defendants then engaged an
expert on the subject matter to inspect the
staining. It turned out that there was no fault
that could be attributed to the claimant as
there was always going to be ‘natural variation
in the colour of timber across the grain…’ The
claimant, the architect and the expert
expressed their views that the works were in
compliance with the specification but the
defendants however were adamant that the
flooring had to be replaced otherwise the
costs of doing so by a third party would be
recovered from the claimant.
In a situation wherethere is a severescarcity of evidence,even the simplestevidence can shedsome light on thedispute.
7
During the hearings, MacKay’s position was
that he did not authorise the staining for the
whole house. Judge Akenhead however
found the defendant ‘… did positively instruct
and ask Walter Lilly to stain all the veneer
throughout the house…’ primarily because
numerous minutes of meeting thereafter did
not challenge the staining when it proceeded.
The judge rationalised that the defendants ‘…
had been concerned in the past about the
accuracy of minutes, it is not credible that they
did not challenge these minutes if they were
inaccurate in this particular regard.’
Minutes of meetings in construction projects
are often drafted by the architect or engineer.
Contractors very rarely seek for them to be
corrected even when they have reasonable
cause to do so. In Walter Lilly, this oversight
may have the opposite effect for the client but
the significance is the same. Minutes of
meetings, will be considered a source of
evidence. Therefore, if they do not record the
facts correctly as viewed by any one party,
that party should always seek to have the
record corrected. This action may be viewed
as pedantic at the material time but what is
being pedantic compared to being proven
wrong later when there is a need to rely on
such evidence?
In conclusion, accurate records ought to be
kept as evidence irrespective of whether there
are any disputes. Walter Lilly v MacKay
provides us typical examples of how the lack
of reliable records can cause considerable
evidential difficulties during formal dispute
resolution procedures. Such evidence may
not avert a dispute but it would definitely help
courts and tribunals in deciding who was
responsible. It would also do no less to help
experts in providing their opinions as to why
and how delays happened. In other words, let
the evidence speak for itself. �
8
The Case forIndemnity Costs inOpposing Arbitral Awards
by Lee Shih
([email protected]) / Partner, Skrine
In upholding the contractual agreement for parties
to arbitrate a dispute, a party who obtains an
arbitral award in his favour should be entitled to
expect that the Court will enforce the award as a
matter of course. After the award has been issued
however, the successful party will likely still face Court
challenges by the losing party through an application
filed to set aside the award or to oppose the
enforcement of the award.
If such an application is unsuccessful however, there
may be a case to argue that the successful party
should then be allowed costs on the higher indemnity
basis rather than just the standard basis.
This article will analyse how the different jurisdictions
have dealt with this issue and how in Malaysia, there is
a case for costs on an indemnity basis to be awarded
in such unsuccessful challenges to an arbitral award.
Hong Kong’s Position inSupport of Indemnity CostsThe Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Pacific China
Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) v Grand Pacific Holdings
Ltd [2012] HKCA 332 has affirmed the principle that
an unsuccessful party in applying to set aside an
arbitral award, or in resisting the enforcement of the
award, in the absence of special circumstances, will
be liable to pay costs on an indemnity basis.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the principle set out by
Reyes J in the Hong Kong Court of First Instance case
of A v R [2009] HKCFI 342 and its own approach in
Gao Haiyan & Anor v Keeneye Holdings Ltd & Anor
(No 2) [2012] 1 HKC 491 in holding that, given
that the parties had agreed to arbitration,
applications by a party to set aside an arbitral
award or to resist enforcement should be
exceptional events.
The reasoning is that if the losing party is only
made to pay costs on a conventional party-and-
party basis, the winning party would in effect be
subsidising the losing party’s abortive attempt to
frustrate enforcement of a valid award. The
winning party would only be able to recover about
two-thirds of its costs of the challenge and would
be out of pocket as to one-third. This is despite
the winning party already having successfully
gone through an arbitration and obtained an
award in its favour. The losing party, in contrast,
would not be bearing the full consequences of its
abortive application.
Therefore, it now appears quite settled in Hong
Kong that the onus is on the losing party who is
unsuccessful in such a challenge to demonstrate
the special circumstances why an indemnity
costs order ought not to be granted.
Australia and EnglandBy contrast to the Hong Kong position however,
the cases from Australia and England adopt the
position that in an unsuccessful challenge to an
arbitral award, costs should still only be awarded
on the standard basis unless there are other
circumstances to justify an indemnity costs order.
9
In Australia, the Court of Appeal of Victoria in
IMC Aviation Solutions Pty Limited v Altain
Khuder [2011] VSCA 248 considered the issue
of whether indemnity costs should be awarded
in an unsuccessful challenge to an arbitral
award. The Judge at first instance had adopted
the approach of Reyes J in A v R in awarding
such indemnity costs. However, the Court of
Appeal overturned this decision and held that
there was nothing in the Victorian civil
procedure statute or in the nature of
enforcement proceedings for arbitral awards
which, of itself, warranted costs being awarded
against an unsuccessful party on a basis
different from that on which they would have
been awarded in other civil proceedings. The
general position would be that costs will
ordinarily be awarded against the unsuccessful
party on the standard basis unless the
successful party can establish special
circumstances.
In England, the English courts may likely award
indemnity costs where proceedings are brought
in breach of a binding arbitration agreement. In
the High Court decision of A v B (No 2) [2007]
EWHC 54 (Comm) for example, court
proceedings were stayed as the proceedings
were brought in breach of an arbitration
agreement. It was held that as the breach had
caused the innocent party to incur legal costs,
those costs should normally be recoverable on
an indemnity basis.
Similar to the Australian position however, the
English decisions have not appeared to adopt
…the general principle inMalaysia on indemnity costs
would also require something outof the norm in order to depart
from costs on the standard basis.
indemnity costs would also require something
out of the norm in order to depart from costs on
the standard basis. The Federal Court in Takako
Sakao (f) v Ng Pek Yuen (f) & Anor (No 2) [2010]
2 MLJ 181 set out some of the guideless for an
award of indemnity costs and emphasised that
the discretion to award such costs is unfettered.
Order 59 Rule 8 of the RC does provide some
guidance on the special matters to be taken
into account in the exercise of the Court’s
discretion in the award of costs, one of which is
to consider the “conduct of all parties, including
before and during the proceedings.” The act of
challenging an arbitral award can be seen as an
exceptional event (see this general sentiment
expressed in the Federal Court decision of
Intelek Timur Sdn Bhd v Future Heritage [2004]
1 MLJ 401 and the Court of Appeal in AJWA
For Food Industries Co (MIGOP), Egypt v Pacific
Inter-Link Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2013] 2
CLJ 395). Therefore, similar to the Hong Kong
position, the losing party should bear the full
consequences of its unsuccessful attempt at
challenging the award by being penalised with
indemnity costs.
It remains to be seen which direction we will
move towards and whether we will adopt the
more punitive approach of awarding indemnity
costs for unsuccessful challenges to an award.
This may then enhance Malaysia’s position as
an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, with the courts
upholding awards and discouraging frivolous
challenges. �
10
the Hong Kong approach in leaning towards
awarding indemnity costs for unsuccessful
challenges. The general position is that an order
for indemnity costs will be made only where
there is some conduct or some circumstances
which takes the case out of the norm (see the
English High Court decision of Fiona Trust &
Holding Corporate and ors v Yuri Privalov and
ors [2011] EWHC 664 (Comm) summarising the
general principles justifying the award of
indemnity costs).
The English High Court decision of Exfin
Shipping (India) Ltd Mumbai v Tolani Shipping
Co. Ltd Mumbai, [2006] EWHC 1090 (Comm)
is an example where costs were awarded on an
indemnity basis. The applicant was
unsuccessful in applying to set aside an arbitral
award and it was held that the applicant had
acted in its own perceived commercial interest
and without merit. That was sufficient to take the
case “out of the norm” thus justifying the order
for indemnity costs.
MalaysiaAn award of costs on an indemnity basis is set
out in Order 59 Rule 16(4) of the Rules of Court
2012 (“RC”) which essentially allows for all costs
except in so far as they are of an unreasonable
amount or have been unreasonably incurred.
The issue of whether costs on an indemnity
basis should be allowed in unsuccessful
challenges to an arbitral award does not appear
to have been considered by the courts here.
Thus far, the general principle in Malaysia on
It remains to be seen which direction wewill move towards and whether we will
adopt the more punitive approach ofawarding indemnity costs for unsuccessful
challenges to an award.
12
CPD Talk by Mr Kevin Reevesof RO Consulting Sdn Bhd* 28 February 2013
What the Courts Are Now Saying About Delays
1
1 Kevin Reeves delivering his presentation
2
3
2 Kevin Reeves engaging the audience in a Q&A session
3 Audience in rapt attention
* Now known as ReevesOw Consulting Sdn Bhd
13
Membership UpgradeCourse 20 & 21 October 2012
1 2
3 4 5
6 7
1 Some of the members who attended the course
2 The President, Mr Chang Wei Mun delivering his talk
3 Sanjay Mohanasundram
4 Jonathan Yoon
5 Kevin Prakash
6 Ow Sau Pin
7 Ooi Huey Miin
14
The Big PictureIncorporation of an ArbitrationClause by Inference?
by Nereen Kaur Veriah LL.B (Hons) (London) C.L.P.
Associate, Shook Lin & Bok
The issue of whether an arbitration clause may be incorporatedinto a contract by drawing inferences from the conduct ofparties or documents other than the contract in dispute is anarea of far-reaching consequences. This article looks at arecent judicial decision on this issue.
15
Section 9(5) of the Arbitration Act
2005 (“the 2005 Act”) provides
that, “a reference in an
agreement to a document
containing an arbitration clause shall
constitute an arbitration agreement,
provided that the agreement is in writing
and the reference is such as to make
that clause part of the agreement.”
In essence reference in a contract to a
document (containing an arbitration
agreement) is sufficient to incorporate the
arbitration agreement into that contract.
However, what amounts to a “reference”
to a document containing an arbitration
agreement received judicial attention
recently in the decision by the Federal
Court when it overturned the Court of
Appeal’s decision in the case of
Malaysian Newsprint Industries Sdn
Bhd1. There, the Court of Appeal held
that a reference may be made by
drawing inference from the conduct of
parties or documents other than the
contract in dispute, despite the fact that
the contract in dispute did not expressly
incorporate the document containing the
arbitration agreement.
The facts were these. The appellant
entered into a Technical Services
Agreement (TSA) with the respondents
for the respondents to provide services
as a consultant for the design and
construction of a newsprint mill. The TSA
contained an arbitration agreement.
However, prior to the expiry of the TSA,
both parties entered into negotiations to
extend the time period of the TSA. During
the negotiations, 6 proposals were
submitted by the respondents. Whilst the
first 5 proposals contained a
subordination clause (i.e. an express
term incorporating the TSA and hence
the arbitration agreement), the 6th
proposal did not.
1 Malaysian Newsprint Industries Sdn Bhd v Bechtel International Inc (2012) 9 CLJ 993
the Court of Appeal held that areference may be made by drawing
inference from the conduct of partiesor documents other than the contract
in dispute, despite the fact that thecontract in dispute did not expresslyincorporate the document containing
the arbitration agreement.
16
The appellant brought an action against the
respondent for breach of contract, negligence
and breach of statutory duty. The dispute was
in respect of services provided during the
extended period and in particular, the 6th
proposal. At the High Court, the respondents
applied for a stay of proceedings in favour of
arbitration pursuant to Section 6 of the
Arbitration Act 1952 (“the 1952 Act”). The
High Court Judge was of the view that the
disputed services was in respect of the 3rd
proposal and not the 6th. As the 3rd proposal
expressly refers to the TSA, the respondent’s
application was granted.
The appellant’s appealed to the Court of
Appeal. The appellant argued that the dispute
arose from the 6th proposal and as the 6th
proposal did not have a subordination clause,
it could not be said to have incorporate the
arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal
however dismissed the appeal. In doing so,
the Court of Appeal drew an inference from
the appellant’s conduct and from documents
other than the contract documents (i.e. the
TSA and the first 5 proposals) and held that
the “big picture” was that the appellant had
agreed to arbitrate. This was so despite
acknowledging that the 6th proposal did not
contain a subordination clause (making
reference to the TSA). As such, the Court of
Appeal held that the appellant was stopped
from denying the arbitration agreement.
On appeal to the Federal Court, the issue was
whether the agreement to arbitrate in the TSA
could be inferred into the contract between
the parties, here the 6th proposal even though
there was no express incorporation.
The respondents relied on the case of Bauer1
where the issue before the Court of Appeal
was whether facts and circumstances in the
present case warranted a finding that the
parties either expressly or through their
conduct agreed to incorporate the arbitration
clause into the subsequent work orders (when
only the first work order contained an
arbitration clause). In deciding this issue, the
Court of Appeal considered the guidelines set
out in T.N. Rao v. Balabhadra AIR [1954]
Mad. 71, The Annefield [1971] and The Abu
Road Electricity & Industries Co. Ltd. v.
Industrial Gases Ltd. AIR [1977] Cal. 482 and
was of the view that clear words ought to be
used in incorporating a document containing
an arbitration clause. The Court of Appeal was
also of the view that the particular facts of
2 Bauer (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Daewoo Corporation (1999) 4 CLJ 665
The Federal Court held thatthe arbitration agreement is
one which has to bereduced in writing and not
adopted by way of drawinginference from the conductof the parties or documents
other than the contractgiving rise to the dispute.
17
ADDRESS:20TH FLOOR, AMBANK GROUP BUILDING 55 JALAN RAJA CHULAN50200 KUALA LUMPURMALAYSIATELEPHONE : (603) 2031 1788 (25 Lines)FASCIMILE : (603) 2031 1775/8/9WEBSITE : www.shooklin.com.myEMAIL : [email protected]
EXPERIENCE AND QUALITYShook Lin & Bok is known for its experience and quality in arbitration work. It is one of the largest
law firms and also the oldest law firm of local origin in Malaysia with an extensive litigation and non-litigation practice. The firm’s arbitration team led by Dato’ Cyrus Das, a Fellow of The Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, acts for various multi-national clients including foreign governments in challenges and enforcements of awards arising from international arbitrations. The firm’s International & Domestic Arbitration Department comprise of several partners who are well-regarded in the various fields, including Construction & Engineering, Adjudication, Oil & Gas, Insurance, Shipping & Aviation, Joint Ventures and Commercial Disputes.
Dato’ Dr. Cyrus DasManaging PartnerShook Lin & [email protected]
Nagarajah MuttiahHead, International & Domestic [email protected]
Lam Ko LuenDeputy Head, International & Domestic ArbitrationDeputy President,The Malaysian Institute of [email protected]
each case were important in
determining the intention of the
parties.
Whilst the Federal Court in Bechtel
agreed with the decision of Bauer,
the Court held that Bauer was not
relevant to the present case as there
was no express incorporation in the
6th proposal of the document
containing the arbitration clause.
The Federal Court held that the
arbitration agreement is one which
has to be reduced in writing and not
adopted by way of drawing inference
from the conduct of the parties or
documents other than the contract
giving rise to the dispute. In allowing
the appeal, the Federal Court held
that the Court of Appeal erred when it
accepted that there was no reference
in the 6th proposal to the TSA, but
chose to look at the conduct of the
parties instead.
Based on the above decision, it
would appear that in determining
whether an arbitration agreement has
been successfully incorporated into a
contract, the reference to the
arbitration agreement must be
reduced into writing and into the
contract document which is the
subject matter of the suit or action.
Thus whilst the Courts will look at the
surrounding facts and circumstances
as they did in Bauer, it would appear
from the decision in Bechtel that the
Courts are disinclined to hold that
there is such a reference if the
intention to arbitrate is not evidenced
in clear terms. �
MIArb offers well appointed arbitration rooms complete with document storage facilities. These rooms can be used for meetings, conferences, seminars or workshops and can accommodate up to 80 people in theatre-style seating.
MIArb Rooms &Document StorageFacility for Rent
The room charges include• Use of discussion room (Room C) for
break-up sessions, on a shared basis with other arbitration room users
• Use of library by arbitrators and lawyers during recesses
• Use of reference library• Wifi access
ReservationsA deposit of 20% is required. The balance is payable 10 days before the first day of use.
Booking ConditionsBooking of rooms may be made by either party to the arbitration. The party making the booking shall be responsible for the payment of room rental and other additional costs incurred (e.g. refreshments, fax, telephone, etc.)
Use of rooms outside normal hoursRM50 per extended hour
Normal Opening Hours
8:30am – 5:30pm from Monday – Friday (Except Public Holidays)
Opening Hours on Saturdays,
Sundays & Public Holidays
Room charges as above plus RM30 per hour (the minimum administrative charge is RM120)
Cancellation charges
• More than 30 days notice 10%• 11 to 30 days notice 15%• 10 days or less notice 25%
Services available at extra charge
• Photocopying• Recording & transcripts• LCD projector• Whiteboard-photocopier• Outside catering for snacks & lunch
Storage cabinets
Rates for document storage cabinets are:
2-shelf cabinet3-shelf cabinet
RM2RM3
RM40RM60
Per day Per month
Room A
For Arbitration For Meetings, Conference,Seminars & Workshops
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Capacity (persons)
RM250
RM150
RM250
RM150
40
Room B
For Arbitration For Meetings, Conference,Seminars & Workshops
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Capacity (persons)
RM250
RM150
RM250
RM150
40
Room C
For Meetings, Conference,Seminars & Workshops
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Capacity (persons)
RM200
RM120
RM200
RM120
15
For ArbitrationFor Meetings, Conference,Seminars & Workshops
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Full Day(9:00am – 5:30pm)
Half Day(9:00am – 1:00pm)(2:00pm – 6:00pm)
Capacity (persons)
RM400
RM250
RM400
RM250
80
For Arbitration
Room A+Room B
Contact
Phone: (+60)3-7726 5311Fax: (+60)3-77265322Email: [email protected] [email protected]
Address
Unit 508, Lobby 2, 5th FloorBlock A, Damansara IntanNo. 1, Jalan SS20/2747400 Petaling Jaya,Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Ms A
ha
lya
Ma
he
nd
ra
Sui
te 5
29, B
lock
B2
Leis
ure
Com
mer
ce S
qua
re9,
Jal
an P
JS 8
/946
150
Pet
alin
g Ja
yaS
elan
gor
Dar
ul E
hsan
Te
l: 60
3-78
7752
36Fa
x: 6
03-7
8775
237
Em
ail:
ahal
yam
ahen
dra
@th
e.ne
t.m
y
Ta
n S
ri D
ato
’ C
ec
il W
.M. A
bra
ha
m
c/o
Zul
Rafi
que
& P
artn
ers
D3-
3-8,
Sol
aris
Dut
amas
No.
1, J
alan
Dut
amas
1
5048
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
, Mal
aysi
aTe
l: 60
3-62
0982
28Fa
x: 6
03-6
2098
221
Em
ail :
cec
il@zu
lrafiq
ue.c
om.m
y
Ir. C
ho
ng
Pic
k E
ng
(P
E C
ho
ng
)
4, L
oron
g K
emar
is E
mp
at,
Buk
it B
and
ar R
aya,
Ban
gsar
5910
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
, Mal
aysi
aTe
l: +
603-
2201
2378
Fax:
+60
3-20
9223
78H
/P: +
6012
-297
5323
Em
ail:
cpic
ke@
pc.
jarin
g.m
y
Pro
fesso
r D
r C
olin
YC
On
g
Sui
te 2
-2 G
adon
g P
rop
ertie
s C
entr
e, J
alan
G
adon
g, B
and
ar S
eri B
egaw
an B
E41
19 B
rune
i D
arus
sala
mTe
l: (6
73)(2
)420
913
Fax
: (67
3)(2
)420
911
Em
ail:o
ngle
gal@
bru
net.
bn
Ir D
r W
on
g F
oo
k K
eo
ng
No.
8-4
, Jal
an S
P 2
/2
Tam
an S
erd
ang
Per
dan
aS
eksy
en 2
, 433
00 S
eri K
emb
anga
nS
elan
gor,
Mal
aysi
aTe
l: 60
3-89
4366
86Fa
x: 6
03-8
9452
686
Em
ail:
wea
sbs@
stre
amyx
.com
Nam
es
& A
dd
ress
es
• La
wye
r
• La
wye
r
• C
hart
ered
Eng
inee
r (U
K)
• P
rofe
ssio
nal E
ngin
eer
(Mal
aysi
a)•
Ase
an C
hart
ered
Pro
f. E
ngin
eer
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
(Hig
h C
ourt
of M
alay
a)
• La
wye
r•
Arb
itrat
or
• G
eote
chni
cal,
Civ
il &
S
truc
tura
l Eng
inee
r•
Bui
ldin
g D
emol
ition
E
ngin
eer
Pri
mary
Pro
fess
ion
• LL
B(H
ons)
Uni
vers
ity o
f Bris
tol
• LL
M K
ing’
s C
olle
ge, U
nive
rsity
of L
ond
on,
UK
• D
iplo
ma
in In
tern
atio
nal C
omm
erci
al
Arb
itrat
ion
(CIA
rb) U
K
• LL
B (H
ons)
Que
en M
ary
Col
lege
, Uni
vers
ity
of L
ond
on 1
968
• D
ip M
ech.
E.,
KL
Tech
(196
8)•
Par
t II,
Cou
ncil
of E
ngin
eerin
g In
stitu
tions
, U
K19
77•
Inte
rmed
iate
& P
art
I, U
nive
rsity
of L
ond
on
1991
• B
ache
lor
of L
aw (H
ons)
, Uni
vers
ity o
f W
olve
rham
pto
n 19
92•
LLM
, Uni
vers
ity o
f Mal
aya
2002
• D
ipIC
IArb
, 200
4
• LL
B (H
ons)
-Uni
vers
ity o
f She
ffiel
d•
LLM
(Com
mer
cial
Law
)•
Ph.
D (C
omm
erci
al L
aw &
Arb
itrat
ion)
U
nive
rsity
of L
ond
on•
Dip
lom
a in
Inte
rnat
iona
l Com
mer
cial
A
rbitr
atio
n (C
IArb
)
• B
.Sc
(Civ
il E
ngin
eerin
g, U
nive
rsity
of
Str
athc
lyd
e, S
cotla
nd)
• P
h. D
(Civ
il, M
inin
g &
Ap
plie
d G
eolo
gy,
Uni
vers
ity o
f Str
athc
lyd
e, S
cotla
nd)
• D
ip.E
F (A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Cos
t &
Exe
cutiv
e A
ccou
ntan
ts, U
K)
• P
ost
Gra
d. D
ip in
Arb
itrat
ion
(Col
lege
of
Est
ate
Man
agem
ent,
Rea
din
g)•
LLM
(Com
mer
cial
Law
, Uni
vers
ity o
f N
orth
umb
ria,U
K)
• LL
M (I
nter
natio
nal T
rad
e La
w, U
nive
rsity
N
orth
umb
ria U
K)
Qu
alif
icati
on
& T
rain
ing
• M
ariti
me
Arb
itrat
ion
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Arb
itrat
ion
• C
orp
orat
e A
rbitr
atio
n
• In
tern
atio
nal C
omm
erci
al D
isp
utes
• M
ariti
me
Arb
itrat
ion
• In
vest
men
t D
isp
utes
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Dis
put
es•
Pal
m O
il M
illin
g/P
roce
sses
• B
iom
ass
Pla
nts
• U
tiliti
es (H
eatin
g –
Boi
lers
& R
efrig
erat
ing
Pro
cess
es)
• P
roce
ss/M
anuf
actu
ring
Pla
nt
• C
omm
erci
al A
rbitr
atio
n•
Join
t V
entu
res
• In
sura
nce
• C
onst
ruct
ion
• O
il &
Gas
Ind
ustr
y•
Shi
pp
ing
Ind
ustr
y
• E
xper
t W
itnes
s in
Con
stru
ctio
n In
dus
try
• A
rbitr
ator
in C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y
Arb
itra
tion
Exp
eri
en
ce
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FS
IArb
• Fe
llow
, AC
ICA
(Aus
tral
ian
Cen
tre
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l C
omm
erci
al A
rbitr
atio
n)•
Cha
rter
ed A
rbitr
ator
• P
ast
Cha
irman
CIA
rb
• P
ast
Vic
e P
resi
den
t A
PR
AG
• M
emb
er-I
CC
Com
mis
sion
on
Arb
itrat
ion
• P
ast
Mem
ber
of t
he L
ond
on C
ourt
of I
nter
natio
nal
Arb
itrat
ion
• M
emb
er, I
CC
A•
Mem
ber
, Exe
cutiv
e C
ounc
il of
I-C
eLLS
• M
emb
er, A
dvi
sory
Cou
ncil
of S
IAC
& K
LRC
A•
Mem
ber
, IC
SID
Pan
el•
Mem
ber
, IC
C M
alay
sia
Nat
iona
l Com
mitt
ee•
Cha
ir of
ICC
Mal
aysi
a A
rbitr
atio
n C
omm
ittee
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FI
Mec
hE•
FSIA
rb•
Fello
w-I
nstit
utio
n of
Eng
inee
rs, M
alay
sia;
Aus
tral
ia;
Sin
gap
ore
• H
onor
ary
Fello
w, T
he A
SE
AN
Fed
erat
ion
of E
ngin
eerin
g O
rgan
isat
ion
• P
anel
of A
rbitr
ator
s, IE
M,P
AM
, KLR
CA
, SIA
rb, M
IArb
• H
onFA
FEO
• B
arris
ter
& B
ench
er o
f the
Inne
r Te
mp
le•
FMIA
rb•
FCIA
rb•
Cha
rter
ed A
rbitr
ator
• FS
IArb
• P
resi
den
t of
the
Arb
itrat
ion
Ass
ocia
tion
of B
rune
i D
arus
sala
m•
Vis
iting
Fel
low
, Uni
vers
ity o
f Lon
don
, Sch
ool o
f Int
. A
rbitr
atio
n si
nce
1996
• V
isiti
ng P
rofe
ssor
, Uni
vers
ity o
f Lon
don
, Kin
g’s
Col
lege
• A
dju
nct
Ass
oc P
rof.
NU
S (S
inga
por
e)
• P
rofe
ssio
nal C
ivil
Eng
inee
r M
alay
sia
• C
hart
ered
Civ
il E
ngin
eer
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or•
Acc
red
ited
Che
cker
for
Geo
tech
nica
l Wor
ks (B
EM
5 A
C/G
)•
AS
EA
N E
ngin
eer
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FI
EM
• M
AC
EM
• P
rofe
ssio
nal M
emb
er, C
oncr
ete
Rei
nfor
cing
Ste
el
Inst
itute
,US
A•
Ass
ocia
te M
emb
er, A
ssoc
iatio
n B
usin
ess
Exe
cutiv
es, U
K•
Pan
el M
edia
tor:
KLR
CA
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or: K
LRC
A, I
EM
Pro
fess
ion
al A
ffili
ati
on
List
of M
IArb
Pan
el A
rbitr
ator
s
Nam
es
& A
ddre
sses
Arb
itra
tion E
xperi
ence
Pro
fess
ional A
ffili
ati
on
Pri
mary
Pro
fess
ion
Qualif
icati
on &
Tra
inin
g
Da
tuk
Willia
m L
au
Ku
ng
Hu
i
18-2
0, 1
st F
loor
, Jal
an K
amp
ong
Nya
bor
P.O
. Box
444
9600
0 S
ibu
Sar
awak
Tel:
084-
3361
55 (5
line
s)Fa
x: 0
84-3
3022
3E
mai
l: w
lau@
pc.
jarin
g.m
y
wkh
lau@
gmai
l.com
Da
to’ K
evin
Wo
o T
hin
Fo
ok
c/o
KW
Ass
ocia
te A
rchi
tect
s S
dn
Bhd
Blo
ck A
-2-5
&A
-3-5
, Pla
za D
amas
60, J
alan
Sri
Har
tam
as 1
5048
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
Tel:
603-
6201
0202
Fax:
603
-620
1030
3E
mai
l: kw
oo.a
rbitr
ator
@gm
ail.c
om
Dr
Oo
i T
eik
Au
n
No.
10,
Jal
an B
ukit
Bad
ak,(
Jln
5/17
)46
000
Pet
alin
g Ja
ya, M
alay
sia
Tel:
603-
7984
7299
Fax:
603
-798
4729
2E
mai
l: d
rtao
oi@
gmai
l.com
Da
to’ S
tan
ley I
sa
ac
s
c/o
Isaa
cs T
an &
Chu
17th
Flo
or, M
enar
a H
ap S
eng
(For
mer
ly M
ui P
laza
) Ja
lan
P. R
amle
e50
250
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-20
8138
89Fa
x: 6
03-2
0936
535
Em
ail:
stan
leyi
saac
s@gm
ail.c
om
Ir. K
ho
o C
ho
on
g K
eo
w
c/o
Wan
Moh
amed
& K
hoo
Sd
n B
hd8C
, Jln
Mes
ra 1
, Tam
an M
esra
4015
0 S
hah
Ala
m, S
elan
gor
Tel:
603-
5519
1855
Fax:
603
-551
9286
6E
mai
l: w
mks
b@
stre
amyx
.com
k
ckar
b@
yaho
o.co
m
Rt
Ho
n. L
ord
Do
ug
las D
avid
Ha
ck
ing
Litt
leto
n C
ham
ber
s3,
Kin
g’s
Ben
ch W
alk
Nor
thTh
e Te
mp
leLo
ndon
EC
4Y 7
HR
, UK
Tel:
+44
2077
3544
00Fa
x:+
4420
7797
8699
Em
ail:
dav
id.h
acki
ng@
lond
on-a
rbitr
atio
n.co
m
• La
wye
r
• C
hart
ered
Arc
hite
ct
• C
onsu
lting
Eng
inee
r
• La
wye
r
• E
ngin
eer
(sin
ce 1
963)
• JP
S 1
963-
1969
• C
onsu
lting
Eng
inee
r si
nce
1969
to
pre
sent
• La
wye
r
• B
arris
ter-
at-L
aw (L
ond
on’s
Inn)
• B
ache
lor
of L
aw, L
ond
on S
choo
l of
Eco
nom
ics
• M
aste
r of
Law
(LS
E),
Uni
vers
ity o
f Lon
don
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or U
K•
Reg
iste
red
Ad
jud
icat
or, W
A B
uild
ing
Com
mis
sion
, WA
Min
istr
y of
Jus
tice
(NT)
• B
. Arc
h (H
ons)
UN
SW
, Aus
tral
ia•
Dip
. in
Arb
itrat
ion
(Col
lege
of E
stat
e M
anag
emen
t, R
ead
ing,
UK
)•
B.J
uris
(Hon
s)(M
al)
• B
E (C
ivil)
, Auc
klan
d•
ME
, Auc
klan
d•
Ph
D, S
heffi
eld
• B
ache
lor
of L
aw-
Mid
dle
Tem
ple
, Lon
don
• B
Sc
in C
ivil
Eng
inee
ring
(Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow)
• D
iplo
ma
in In
tern
atio
nal C
omm
erci
al
Arb
itrat
ion
(CIA
rb)
• A
dva
nced
Cou
rse
in M
edia
tion
(KLR
CA
)
• B
.Art
s- C
lare
Col
lege
, Cam
brid
ge U
nive
rsity
• M
.Art
s-C
lare
Col
lege
, Cam
brid
ge•
LLB
- M
idd
le T
emp
le
• A
ccre
dite
d M
edia
tor
(LE
AD
R, I
AM
A)
• IM
I Cer
tified
Med
iato
r•
Con
stru
ctio
n, M
ariti
me
& C
omm
erci
al A
rbitr
atio
n
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y
As
Arb
itrat
or a
nd E
xper
t W
itnes
s si
nce
1994
to
pre
sent
in•
Con
stru
ctio
n In
dus
try
• G
eote
chni
cal E
ngin
eerin
g
• G
over
nmen
t A
rbitr
atio
n ca
ses
• A
rbitr
ated
ove
r 50
cas
es in
con
stru
ctio
n in
dus
try
sinc
e 19
84
• In
telle
ctua
l Pro
per
ty•
Trav
el In
dus
trie
s•
Mor
tgag
e In
dus
trie
s•
Con
stru
ctio
n In
dus
trie
s•
Inte
rnat
iona
l Com
mer
cial
Dis
put
es•
IT•
Mar
itim
e•
Wat
er In
dus
trie
s
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• FS
IArb
• Fe
llow
, IA
MA
• In
tern
atio
nal M
edia
tor
Inst
itute
(IM
I)•
Reg
iste
red
Ad
jud
icat
or, W
este
rn A
ustr
alia
& N
orth
ern
Terr
itory
• N
atio
nal M
edia
tor
Acc
red
itatio
n S
yste
m, A
ustr
alia
(N
MA
S)
• C
hart
ered
Fel
low
of t
he In
stitu
te o
f Log
istic
s &
Tran
spor
t, A
ustr
alia
(C
ILTA
)•
Cha
rter
ed F
ello
w o
f the
Inst
itute
of L
ogis
tics
&
Tran
spor
t, M
alay
sia
(CIL
TM)
• Fo
rmer
Pre
sid
ent
of t
he In
stitu
te o
f Log
istic
s &
Tr
ansp
ort,
Mal
aysi
a
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• A
PA
M•
RIB
A•
Cha
rter
ed A
rbitr
ator
• D
eput
y P
resi
den
t M
IArb
(200
3 to
200
5)•
Pre
sid
ent
MIA
rb (2
005
to 2
008)
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or: C
IArb
, MIA
rb, K
LRC
A, S
IAC
, CIE
TAC
, A
PR
AG
, DIA
C, P
AM
• FI
EM
• M
ICE
• FM
IArb
• P
Eng
(Mal
aysi
a)•
CE
ng (U
K)
• A
PE
C E
ngin
eer
• A
SE
AN
Eng
inee
r•
AC
PE
(AS
EA
N)
• In
tern
atio
nal P
rofe
ssio
nal E
ngin
eer
• P
resi
den
t S
EA
GS
(199
3-19
96, 2
010-
2013
)•
Pre
sid
ent
MIA
rb (2
009)
• C
hairm
an A
GS
SE
A (2
007-
2010
)•
Exe
cutiv
e D
irect
or, I
EM
Tra
inin
g C
entr
e•
Pan
el o
f Arb
itrat
ors:
IEM
, MIA
rb, K
LRC
A
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• E
x-S
enio
r Fe
der
al C
ouns
el, M
alay
sia
& H
ead
of C
ivil
Law
& L
itiga
tion,
AG
Cha
mb
ers
• P
arlia
men
tary
Dra
ftsm
an, M
alay
sia
• C
omm
issi
oner
of
Law
Rev
isio
n, M
alay
sia
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or: K
LRC
A
• P
.Eng
, FM
IArb
, FC
IArb
, FIE
M, F
ICE
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or•
Pas
t C
hairm
an, C
IArb
(Mal
aysi
a) 1
998-
2000
• P
resi
den
t M
IArb
(200
3-20
05)
• P
ast
Vic
e P
resi
den
t IE
M (1
982-
1986
)•
Pas
t V
ice
Pre
sid
ent
Mal
aysi
an In
vent
ion
& D
esig
n S
ocie
ty (1
986-
1991
)•
Pan
el o
f Arb
itrat
ors
: KLR
CA
, M
IArb
, CIA
rb, I
EM
, H
KIA
C, S
IAC
, KC
AB
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FS
IArb
• M
emb
er o
f the
Hou
se o
f Lor
ds
Sel
ect
Com
mitt
ee o
n th
e E
urop
ean
Com
mun
ities
• M
emb
er o
f the
Hou
ses
of P
arlia
men
t Jo
int
Com
mitt
ee
on C
onso
lidat
ion
Bill
s
6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
11.
Nam
es
& A
ddre
sses
Pri
mary
Pro
fess
ion
Qualif
icati
on &
Tra
inin
gA
rbit
rati
on E
xperi
ence
Pro
fess
ional A
ffili
ati
on
Ar.
Me
na
ha
Ra
ma
na
th
67-2
, Med
an S
etia
1,
Pla
za D
aman
sara
, Buk
it D
aman
sara
5049
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
Tel:
012-
2029
026
Fax:
603
-209
5037
6E
mai
l: m
enah
a.ra
man
ath@
gmai
l.com
En
. M
oh
am
ed
Ism
ail B
in M
oh
am
ed
Sh
ari
ff
c/o
SK
RIN
EU
nit
No.
50-
8-1,
8th
Flo
orW
ism
a U
oa D
aman
sara
50 J
alan
Dun
gun,
Dam
ansa
ra H
eigh
ts50
490
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-20
8138
89Fa
x: 6
03-2
0936
535
Em
ail:
ism
ail@
skrin
e.co
m
Da
tuk
Su
nd
ra R
ajo
o N
ad
ara
jah
c/o
Sun
dra
Raj
oo A
rbitr
atio
n C
ham
ber
Sd
n B
hdN
o. 2
8-1,
Med
an S
etia
2B
ukit
Dam
ansa
ra50
490
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-20
9622
28Fa
x: 6
03-2
0962
323
Em
ail:
sund
ra@
sund
rajo
o.co
mW
ebsi
te: w
ww
.sun
dra
rajo
o.co
m
Mr
Te
e G
eo
k H
oc
k
c/o
GH
Tee
& C
o22
A-3
, Jal
an P
JU 8
/3A
Per
dan
a B
usin
ess
Cen
tre
Ban
dar
Dam
ansa
ra P
erd
ana
4782
0 P
etal
ing
Jaya
, Sel
ango
r D
ETe
l: 60
3-77
2648
31Fa
x: 6
03-7
7265
251
Em
ail:
ghte
ecom
@un
ifi.m
y
Mr
Vin
aya
k P
rab
ha
ka
r P
rad
ha
n
c/o
SK
RIN
EU
nit
50-8
-1, 8
th F
loor
Wis
ma
UO
A D
aman
sara
50, J
alan
Dun
gun,
Dam
ansa
ra H
eigh
ts50
490
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-20
9481
11Fa
x: 6
03-2
0943
211
Em
ail:
vp@
skrin
e.co
m
Da
to’
WS
W D
avid
so
n
c/o
Azm
an D
avid
son
& C
o.S
uite
13.
03, 1
3th
Floo
rM
enar
a Ta
n &
Tan
207,
Jal
an T
un R
azak
5040
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
Tel:
603-
2164
0200
Fax:
603
-216
4028
0
• A
rchi
tect
& B
uild
ing
Aud
it
• La
wye
r
• A
rchi
tect
• To
wn
Pla
nner
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
(Non
-pra
ctis
ing)
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or
• La
wye
r
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
• La
wye
r
• B
A(H
ons)
Arc
hite
ctur
e •
Pos
t G
rad
uate
Dip
lom
a in
Arc
hite
ctur
e,
Uni
vers
ity o
f Por
tsm
outh
, UK
• LL
B.(H
ons)
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gap
ore
1969
• LL
M U
nive
rsity
of L
ond
on 1
974
• B
.Sc,
Hou
sing
, Bui
ldin
g &
Pla
nnin
g,
Uni
vers
ity S
ains
Mal
aysi
a 19
79•
LLB
Uni
vers
ity o
f Lon
don
• M
aste
rs in
Con
stru
ctio
n La
w &
Arb
itrat
ion
(with
Mer
its) L
eed
s M
etro
pol
itan
Uni
vers
ity•
Mas
ter
in P
hilo
sop
hy in
Law
, Man
ches
ter
Uni
vers
ity•
Gra
d. D
ip. i
n A
rchi
tect
ure,
TC
AE
Aus
tral
ia•
Gra
d. D
ip in
Urb
an 7
Reg
iona
l Pla
nnin
g TS
IT, A
ustr
alia
• C
LP M
alay
sia
• D
ipIC
IArb
UK
• LL
B (H
ons)
Uni
vers
ity o
f Mal
aya
1983
• LL
B (H
ons)
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sin
gap
ore-
1974
• LL
B Q
ueen
’s U
nver
sity
, Bel
fast
• B
uild
ing
& C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y
• H
ave
app
eare
d a
s le
adin
g co
unse
l in
man
y ar
bitr
atio
n ca
ses
on c
onst
ruct
ion
& in
telle
ctua
l pro
per
ty
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y •
Aut
hor
of “
Law
, Pra
ctic
e &
Pro
ced
ure
of A
rbitr
atio
n 20
03”
• Th
e M
alay
sian
Std
For
m o
f Bui
ldin
g C
ontr
act
(The
PA
M
1998
For
m, 2
nd E
d 1
999)
• A
rbitr
atio
n tit
le fo
r “H
alsb
ury’
s La
w o
f Mal
aysi
a, 2
002
pub
lishe
d b
y Le
xisN
exis
• C
o-au
thor
ed “
The
Arb
itrat
ion
Act
200
5 U
ncitr
al M
odel
La
w a
s ap
plie
d in
Mal
aysi
a 20
07”
• C
o-au
thor
ed “
The
PA
M 2
006
Std
For
m o
f Bui
ldin
g C
ontr
act
2010
”
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y•
Com
mer
cial
Dis
put
es•
Join
t V
entu
re D
isp
utes
• C
oal M
inin
g D
isp
utes
• D
isp
utes
on
Dis
trib
utor
ship
Agr
eem
ent
• D
isp
utes
on
Fab
ricat
ion
& M
anuf
actu
ring
Con
trac
ts•
Dis
put
es o
n B
.O.T
. Con
trac
t
• O
il &
Gas
Ind
ustr
y•
Con
stru
ctio
n In
dus
try
• C
omm
erci
al•
Mar
ine
Ind
ustr
y
• O
il &
Gas
Ind
ustr
y•
Con
stru
ctio
n In
dus
try
• C
omm
erci
al
• Fe
llow
, PA
M•
Pro
fess
iona
l Arc
hite
ct L
AM
• C
hart
ered
Mem
ber
Roy
al In
stitu
te o
f Brit
ish
Arc
hite
cts
(RIB
A)
• FM
IArb
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• D
irect
or K
LRC
A•
Pre
sid
ent
AP
RA
G•
Foun
din
g P
resi
den
t S
CL,
Mal
aysi
a•
Cou
ncil
Mem
ber
MIA
rb (1
990-
2003
)•
Cou
ncil
of A
rchi
tect
ural
Ed
ucat
ion
Mal
aysi
a (1
999-
2001
)•
Mem
ber
of J
oint
Boa
rd o
f Arc
hite
cts
Mal
aysi
a &
the
M
alay
sia
Inst
itute
of A
rchi
tect
s P
rof.
Reg
istr
atio
n E
xam
P
anel
(199
7/19
99, 1
994/
1995
)•
Mem
ber
of C
PD
Wor
king
Com
mitt
ee B
oard
of
Arc
hite
cts
Mal
aysi
a (2
002-
2007
)•
Tuto
r &
Exa
min
er fo
r m
emb
ersh
ip c
ours
es, C
IArb
UK
• M
emb
er, A
cad
emy
of E
xper
ts, U
K•
Arb
itrat
or, O
lym
pic
Cou
ncil
of M
alay
sia
• C
ount
ry R
ep o
f the
Dis
put
e R
evie
w B
oard
Fou
ndat
ion
in S
eatle
US
A•
FCIA
rb•
FMIA
rb
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• P
resi
den
t, M
IArb
(200
0-A
pril
200
3)
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or•
Com
mis
sion
er-U
nite
d N
atio
ns C
omp
ensa
tion
Com
mis
sion
(199
8-20
03)
• M
emb
er, P
erm
anen
t C
ourt
of A
rbitr
atio
n, T
he H
ague
• C
IArb
Pre
sid
ent
2013
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• M
ICC
I (m
emb
er o
f arb
itrat
ion
com
mitt
ee)
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Nam
es
& A
ddre
sses
Pri
mary
Pro
fess
ion
Qualif
icati
on &
Tra
inin
gA
rbit
rati
on E
xperi
ence
Pro
fess
ional A
ffili
ati
on
Ms W
on
g P
ek
Yin
, C
hri
sti
ne
12, L
alua
n Ta
mb
un P
erd
ana
6,P
anor
ama
Tam
bun
Per
dan
a,
3140
0 Ip
oh, P
erak
Tel:
605-
2412
969
Fax:
605
-253
6910
Em
ail:
kris
tique
@gm
ail.c
om
Mr
Wilfr
ed
Ab
rah
am
c/o
Zul
Rafi
que
& P
artn
ers
D3-
3-8,
Sol
aris
Dut
amas
No.
1, J
alan
Dut
amas
1
5048
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
Tel:
603-
6209
8228
Fax:
603
-620
9822
1E
mai
l: w
ilfre
d_a
bra
ham
@zu
lrafiq
ue.c
om.m
y
En
Za
fru
l M
ah
mo
od
22, J
alan
Sep
ah P
uter
i 5/1
9K
ota
Dam
ansa
ra47
810
Pet
alin
g Ja
yaTe
l: 60
3-76
2727
88Fa
x: 6
03-7
6257
059
Em
ail:
zafr
ulm
ahm
ood
@gm
ail.c
om
Mr
Vic
tor
Sm
ith
Cha
rnd
ell A
ssoc
iate
s C
o. L
td4/
F, U
nit
1402
, GP
Hou
se57
2 S
oi L
adp
rao
112
Wan
thon
glan
gB
angk
ok 1
0310
Tha
iland
Tel:
(66-
2) 5
1491
70-7
1Fa
x: (6
6-2)
514
9172
emai
l: vs
mith
@ch
arnd
ell.c
omw
ebsi
te: w
ww
.cha
rnd
ell.c
om
Mr
Vin
ce
nt
Lim
Ku
o P
ha
u
c/o
Vin
cent
Lim
& P
artn
ers
No.
18-
3A, 3
rd F
loor
, Jal
an K
amp
ung
Att
ap50
460
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 03
-227
3467
5Fa
x: 0
3-00
2734
678
emai
l: kl
imtw
o@ya
hoo.
com
Mr
Be
lde
n P
rem
ara
j
Leve
l 1B
, Blk
B, K
omp
leks
Pej
abat
Dam
ansa
ra,
Jln
Dun
gun
Dam
ansa
ra H
eigh
ts50
490
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-20
9502
03Fa
x: 6
03-2
0950
506
emai
l: b
eld
en@
bel
den
lex.
com
Mr
Mo
ha
na
da
ss K
an
ag
asa
ba
i
M/s
. Moh
anad
ass
Par
tner
ship
15-1
5 To
wer
A, L
evel
15
Men
ara
UO
A B
angs
arN
o.5
Jln
Ban
gsar
Uta
ma
145
900
Kua
la L
ump
ur
Tel:
603-
2282
0895
Fax:
603
-228
2089
7em
ail:
moh
an@
moh
anad
ass.
com
• Q
uant
ity S
urve
yor
• La
wye
r
• E
ngin
eer
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or•
Cha
rter
ed Q
S•
Cha
rter
ed B
uild
er
• La
wye
r
• La
wye
r
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
• B
ache
lor
of C
onst
ruct
ion
Eco
nom
ics
RM
IT,
Aua
tral
ia•
Pos
t G
rad
uate
Dip
lom
a in
Arb
itrat
ion-
Col
lege
of E
stat
e M
anag
emen
t, U
K•
Ad
jud
icat
ion
trai
ning
Cou
rse
–CIA
rb (U
K)
• A
ccre
dite
d M
edia
tor
by
CIA
rb (U
K)
• A
ccre
dite
d M
edia
tor
CID
B•
Pan
el A
rbitr
ator
KLR
CA
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or M
IArb
• B
arris
ter,
Mid
dle
Tem
ple
• B
ache
lor
of S
cien
ce C
ivil
Eng
inee
ring,
US
A•
Dip
in A
rbitr
atio
n, U
K
• B
Sc
QS
, Kin
gsto
n P
olyt
echn
ic•
LLM
Mas
ter
of L
aws
Deg
ree
in In
tern
atio
nal
Com
mer
cial
law
• B
Sc
Hon
s (E
ngin
eerin
g) (U
nive
rsity
of
Lond
on)
• LL
B U
nive
rsity
of L
ond
on•
Bac
helo
r of
Art
s (P
hilo
sop
hy),
Lond
on•
Mas
ter
of A
rts
in A
pp
lied
Lin
guis
tics,
New
E
ngla
nd, A
ustr
alia
• LL
B H
ons,
Uni
vers
ity o
f Liv
erp
ool,
UK
• B
arris
ter,
Lin
coln
Inn
• LL
B H
ons
• C
LP
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y
• In
sura
nce
• C
onst
ruct
ion
• In
tern
atio
nal C
omm
erci
al L
aw•
Sp
orts
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y
• E
ngin
eerin
g &
Con
stru
ctio
n In
dus
try
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y
• C
onst
ruct
ion
& E
ngin
eerin
g•
Oil
& G
as•
Ene
rgy
& U
tility
• G
ener
al In
sura
nce
• C
onst
ruct
ion
& E
ngin
eerin
g•
Oil
& G
as•
Com
pan
y La
w Is
sues
• C
ontr
acts
& C
omm
erci
al D
isp
utes
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• M
CIO
B
• FM
IArb
• P
rofe
ssio
nl C
ivil
Eng
inee
r•
FCIA
rb•
FMIA
rb•
FIH
T,U
K•
Pan
el A
rbitr
ator
, IE
M
• FR
ICS
• FC
IOB
• FC
IArb
• FH
KIA
rb•
MLC
IA•
FSIA
rb•
FMIA
rb•
Cha
rter
ed A
rbitr
ator
• P
rofe
ssio
nal E
ngin
eer
• FI
EM
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor,
Hig
h C
ourt
of M
alay
a•
Mem
ber
of L
AW
AS
IA•
Mem
ber
of S
CL,
UK
• M
emb
er o
f PA
AM
• M
emb
er o
f IP
BA
• K
LRC
A P
anel
Arb
itrat
or
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FS
IArb
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or: K
LRC
A, M
IArb
, IC
C M
alay
sia
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Nam
es
& A
ddre
sses
Pri
mary
Pro
fess
ion
Qualif
icati
on &
Tra
inin
gA
rbit
rati
on E
xperi
ence
Pro
fess
ional A
ffili
ati
on
Mr
Ch
an
g W
ei M
un
c/o
Raj
a, D
arry
l & L
oh18
th F
loor
, Wis
ma
Sim
e D
arb
yJa
lan
Raj
a La
ut50
350
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-26
9499
99Fa
x: 6
03-2
6984
759
emai
l: ch
angw
eim
un@
rdl.c
om.m
y
Mr
Nit
in N
ad
ka
rni
c/o
Lee
His
ham
mud
din
Alle
n &
Gle
dhi
llLe
vel 1
6, M
enar
a TM
Asi
a Li
fe18
9, J
alan
Tun
Raz
ak50
400
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-21
6123
30Fa
x: 6
03-2
1613
933
emai
l: nn
@lh
-ag.
com
Mr
Na
he
nd
ran
Na
va
ratn
am
c/o
Kad
ir, A
ndri
& P
artn
ers
8th
Floo
r, M
enar
a S
afua
n80
Jal
an A
mp
ang
5045
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
Tel:
603-
2078
2888
Fax:
603
-207
8843
1E
mai
l: nn
@ka
apla
w.c
om
Ir G
on
g N
gie
De
e
EC
ON
(Mal
aysi
a)65
A, J
alan
SS
25/
247
301
Pet
alin
g Ja
yaS
elan
gor
DE
, Mal
aysi
aTe
l: 60
3-78
0318
33Fa
x: 6
03-7
8046
433
H/P
: 019
-262
2138
Em
ail:
ndgo
ng@
yaho
o.co
m
Mr
S.
Ah
me
d S
arw
an
a J
usti
ce
(R
etd
)
c/o
Ab
raha
m &
Sar
wan
aP
IDC
Hou
se, M
ezza
nine
Flo
orD
r. Z
iaud
din
Roa
dK
arac
hi 7
5530
Pak
ista
nTe
l: 92
21-3
5687
360
Fax:
922
1-35
6873
64M
obile
: 923
01-8
2928
13E
mai
l: in
fo@
abra
ham
slaw
.net
Mr
Ma
lco
lm H
olm
es,
QC
11th
Flo
or, W
entw
orth
Cha
mb
ers
180
Phi
llip
Str
eet
Syd
ney,
New
Sou
th W
ales
Aus
tral
iaTe
l: +
61-2
-923
2840
9Fa
x: +
61-2
-923
2762
6M
obile
: +61
-411
4658
36E
mai
l:m
alco
lmho
lmes
@w
entw
orth
cham
ber
s.co
m.a
u
Mr
Ra
nd
olp
h K
ho
o B
oo
Te
ck
c/o
Dre
w &
Nap
ier
LLC
10 C
olly
er Q
uay
#10-
00O
cean
Fin
anci
al C
entr
eS
inga
por
e 04
9315
Tel:
+65
-653
1241
8Fa
x: +
65-6
2200
324
Mob
ile: +
65-9
3626
211
Em
ail:
rand
olp
h.kh
oo@
dre
wna
pie
r.co
m
• La
wye
r
• La
wye
r
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
• C
ivil/
Str
uctu
ral E
ngin
eer
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
• E
x-Ju
dge
, Hig
h C
ourt
of
Sin
dh,
Kar
achi
• A
rbitr
ator
, Cou
nsel
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or
• D
irect
or,
Dre
w &
Nap
ier
LLC
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
• B
ache
lor
of L
aws
(Can
terb
ury)
• LL
B H
ons
(Uni
vers
ity o
f Lon
don
)
• B
Sc
(Mat
eria
ls S
cien
ce)
• B
ache
lor
of L
aws
• B
E H
ons,
MS
c(E
ng) S
inga
por
e•
LLB
Hon
s (L
ond
on)
• D
ipIC
IArb
(CE
M, U
K)
• C
LP
• B
.A. U
niv.
Kar
achi
, Pak
ista
n•
LLB
Uni
v. K
arac
hi, P
akis
tan
• LL
M U
niv.
Pen
nsyl
vani
a U
SA
• B
.A.,
LLB
Syd
ney
• B
ache
lor
of C
ivil
Law
(Oxf
ord
Uni
.)•
Dip
lom
a in
Inte
rnat
iona
l Com
mer
cial
A
rbitr
atio
n (C
IArb
)
• LL
B (H
ons)
NU
S
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y•
Com
mer
cial
Tra
nsac
tions
• In
tern
atio
nal T
rad
e•
Inte
rnat
iona
l Law
• In
sura
nce
• C
onst
ruct
ion
• In
telle
ctua
l Pro
per
ty
• Ta
x &
Pro
ject
Dis
put
es
• In
solv
ency
& R
ecei
vers
hip
• C
orp
orat
e G
over
nanc
e, D
irect
ors’
Dut
ies
& F
iduc
iary
O
blig
atio
ns; T
akeo
ver’
s &
Sha
reho
lder
s D
isp
utes
• C
onst
ruct
ion
& B
uild
ing
Law
• P
lann
ing
Law
• In
sura
nce
• To
rt &
Con
trac
t in
clud
ing
spec
ifica
lly L
ibel
, Nui
sanc
e,
Neg
ligen
ce &
Qua
si-c
ontr
actu
al C
laim
s•
Jud
icia
l Rev
iew
• R
even
ue L
aw
• C
&S
Eng
inee
ring
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Con
trac
ts•
Pili
ng &
Pile
d F
ound
atio
ns
• C
omm
erci
al, C
ivil
& C
onst
itutio
nal
• Ju
dic
ial R
evie
w•
Con
stru
ctio
n D
isp
utes
• B
usin
ess
& In
vest
men
t•
Shi
pp
ing
• In
telle
ctua
l Pro
per
ty•
Cor
por
ate
& F
inan
ce•
Insu
ranc
e•
Inso
lven
cy
• In
tern
atio
nal a
nd d
omes
tic a
rbitr
atio
ns in
volv
ing
com
mer
cial
, con
stru
ctio
n, in
sura
nce,
min
ing,
mar
itim
e an
d s
por
ts d
isp
utes
• G
ener
al c
ivil
litig
atio
n, s
pec
ialis
ing
in in
tern
atio
nal &
d
omes
tic a
rbitr
atio
n, c
omp
any,
con
trac
t la
w,
shar
ehol
der
, mat
rimon
ial &
fam
ily a
sset
dis
put
es
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• FS
IArb
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or: K
LRC
A, M
IArb
, KC
AB
, IC
C M
alay
sia
• M
edia
tor
with
Mal
aysi
an M
edia
tion
Cen
tre
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or: K
LRC
A, M
IArb
• M
edia
tor
with
Mal
aysi
an M
edia
tion
Cen
tre
• C
hart
ered
Arb
itrat
or•
FCIA
rb•
FMIA
rb•
IPB
A M
emb
er•
Acc
red
ited
Med
iato
r
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FI
EM
• M
ICE
• P
Eng
• C
Eng
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or, K
LRC
A, I
EM
, MIA
rb
• FM
IArb
• IP
BA
Mem
ber
• M
emb
er o
f LA
WA
SIA
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or
• FC
IArb
• FI
AM
A•
FMIA
rb•
Pan
el A
rbitr
ator
of A
AA
, SIA
C, C
IETA
C, K
LRC
A, H
KIA
C,
AC
ICA
, MC
CI,
JCA
A, K
CA
B
• FS
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or, L
aw S
ocie
ty A
rbitr
atio
n S
chem
e
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Nam
es
& A
ddre
sses
Pri
mary
Pro
fess
ion
Qualif
icati
on &
Tra
inin
gA
rbit
rati
on E
xperi
ence
Pro
fess
ional A
ffili
ati
on
Mr
So
h L
ieh
Sie
ng
c/o
Cha
rlton
Mar
tin C
onsu
ltant
s S
dn
Bhd
A-1
0-3,
Nor
thp
oint
Mid
-Val
ley
No.
1 M
edan
Sye
d P
utra
Uta
ra59
200
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: +
603-
2287
5175
Fax:
+60
3-22
8751
76M
obile
: +06
012-
6189
318
Em
ail:
liehs
ieng
.soh
@ch
arlto
nmar
tin.c
om
Ms E
lain
e Y
ap
Ch
in G
aik
c/o
Won
g &
Par
tner
sLe
vel 2
1, T
he G
ard
ens,
Sou
th T
ower
Mid
Val
ley
City
, Lin
gkar
an S
yed
Put
ra59
200
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-22
9878
38Fa
x: 6
03-2
2822
669
Mob
ile: 0
12-3
2221
46E
mai
l: el
aine
.yap
@w
ongp
artn
ers.
com
Mr
Ra
jen
dra
Na
va
ratn
am
c/o
Azm
an D
avid
son
& C
oS
uite
13.
03, 1
3th
Floo
rM
enar
a Ta
n &
Tan
207,
Jal
an T
un R
azak
5040
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
Tel:
603-
2164
0200
Fax:
603
-216
4028
0E
mai
l: ra
j.nav
arat
nam
@az
man
dav
idso
n.co
m.m
y
Mr
On
g H
oc
k T
ek
c/o
BK
Ent
rust
y22
-1 &
22-
2 Ja
lan
2/10
9ED
esa
Bus
ines
s P
ark,
Tam
an D
esa
5810
0 K
uala
Lum
pur
Tel:
603-
7982
2123
Fax:
603
-798
2312
2M
obile
: 012
-239
1888
Em
ail:
hton
g@en
trus
ty.c
om
Mr
La
m K
o L
ue
n
c/o
Sho
ok L
in &
Bok
20th
Flo
or, B
angu
nan
Am
Ban
k G
roup
55 J
alan
Raj
a C
hula
n50
200
Kua
la L
ump
urTe
l: 60
3-20
3117
88Fa
x: 6
03-2
0311
778
Em
ail:
kolu
en@
shoo
klin
.com
.my
Ca
pta
in J
ulia
n B
row
n
c/o
JCP
Mar
ine
Pte
Ltd
896
Dun
earn
Roa
dS
ime
Dar
by
Cen
tre
#04-
05D
Sin
gap
ore
5894
72Te
l: +
65-6
2257
767
Fax:
+65
-622
5716
9E
mai
l: ju
lian.
bro
wn@
jcp
mar
ine.
com
• R
egio
nal D
irect
or
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
• A
dvo
cate
& S
olic
itor
of
Hig
h C
ourt
of M
alay
a &
B
rune
i Dar
ussa
lam
• M
D o
f Ent
rust
y G
roup
of
Com
pan
ies
• D
irect
or o
f BK
Bur
ns &
O
ng s
/b &
BK
Bur
ns (S
) P
te L
td.
• La
wye
r
• M
ariti
me
Con
sulta
nt•
Arb
itrat
or
• B
Eng
(Hon
s), M
Sc,
CE
ng
• LL
B (H
ons)
, BS
c(H
ons)
• B
Sc
(Hon
s) E
lect
rical
Eng
inee
ring,
UK
• LL
B (H
ons)
UK
• B
Sc(
Hon
s) B
uild
ing
Eco
nom
ics
& Q
S, U
K•
MS
c C
onst
ruct
ion
Man
agem
ent
& B
usin
ess
Ad
min
istr
atio
n, U
K•
Dip
ICA
rb
• B
.Com
m. L
LB (A
ustr
alia
)
• LL
.M in
Inte
rnat
iona
l Tra
nsp
ort
& M
ariti
me
Law
• D
iplo
ma
in A
rbitr
atio
n•
P.G
. Dip
lom
a in
Mar
itim
e La
w•
Mas
ter
Mar
iner
• E
ngin
eerin
g &
Con
stru
ctio
n In
dus
try
• E
xper
t W
itnes
s
• H
ave
app
eare
d a
s co
unse
l in
man
y ar
bitr
atio
n ca
ses
on
com
mer
cial
and
con
stru
ctio
n d
isp
utes
• G
ener
al c
omm
erci
al li
tigat
ion
• A
rbitr
ated
man
y ar
bitr
atio
n ca
ses
sinc
e 20
03 fo
r C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y, c
omm
erci
al a
nd g
ener
al d
isp
utes
• A
pp
eare
d a
s le
ad c
ouns
el in
man
y ar
bitr
atio
n ca
ses
sinc
e 20
00
• B
uild
ing
& C
onst
ruct
ion
Ind
ustr
y
• B
uild
ing,
Con
stru
ctio
n &
Eng
inee
ring
Dis
put
es•
JV D
isp
utes
• M
inin
g C
ontr
act
Dis
put
es•
Land
dev
elop
men
t &
Pro
ject
Dev
elop
men
t A
gree
men
t D
isp
utes
• D
isp
utes
Rel
atin
g to
Pro
duc
tion
Sha
ring
Agr
eem
ents
(Oil
& G
as)
• G
ener
al C
ontr
actu
al D
isp
utes
• M
ariti
me
Ind
ustr
y
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• M
ICE
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or
• FM
IArb
• M
IEM
• P
rofe
ssio
nal E
ngin
eer
• M
emb
er o
f Hon
. Soc
iety
of M
idd
le T
emp
le U
K•
Cha
rter
ed A
rbitr
ator
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or –
KLR
CA
, SIA
C, P
OR
AM
, IE
M, I
CC
M
alay
sia
• M
MIM
• M
IVM
A•
FRIS
M•
ICE
CA
• FR
ICS
• FC
Inst
CE
S•
FCIO
B•
FCIA
rb•
FSIA
rb•
FMIA
rb•
Pan
el a
rbitr
ator
& A
ccre
dite
d M
edia
tor
• FC
IArb
• FM
IArb
• P
anel
Arb
itrat
or, A
dju
dic
ator
, KLR
CA
• FM
IArb
• FC
IArb
• FS
IArb
• A
DR
Pan
el o
f FO
SFA
, IB
IA, K
LRC
A, L
MA
A
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
List of New Members/Upgrade forSession July 2012 to April 2013FFellow M/No. Date Approved
1.Mr Malcolm Holmes F/090 26/07/2012
2.Mr Soh Lieh Sieng F/091 26/07/2012
3.Mr Darryl Goon Siew Chye F/092 26/07/2012
4.Mr Ooi Huey Miin F/093 18/09/2012
5.Capt. Julian Christopher Patric Brown F/094 18/09/2012
6.Mr Khoo Boo Teck Randolph F/095 18/09/2012
7.Justice (Ret) Mohideen M P Haja Rubin F/096 18/09/2012
8.Mr Rajendra Navaratnam F/097 21/11/2012
9.Dato Sin Yoong Ming F/100 21/03/2013
10.Dato Abdul Shukor bin Ahmad F/101 21/03/2013
11.Mr Choon Hon Leng F/102 21/03/2013
12.Mr R. Jayasingam a/l Ratnasingam F/104 23/04/2013
13.Mr C. Michael Heihre F/105 23/04/2013
Upgraded from Member to Fellow
1.Mr Wang Cheow Kean F/087 26/07/2012
2.Mr Tan Chik Tiam F/088 26/07/2012
3.Mr Lam Ko Luen F/089 26/07/2012
4.Mr Ho June Khai F/098 17/01/2013
5.Mr Ernest JK Azad F/099 21/02/2013
6.Mr Yong Hee Leong F/103 23/04/2013
7.Ms Tan Swee Im F/106 23/04/2013
Member
1.Mr Kung Chong Min Jeremy M/365 26/07/2012
2.Ir Pook Fong Fee M/370 21/11/2012
3.Dr Kogulan Padama Padamakavander M/376 21/02/2013
Upgraded from Associate to Member
1.Miss Hor Shirley M/366 26/07/2012
2.Miss Victoria Loi Tien Fen M/367 16/08/2012
3.Mr Wilson Ho Sheen Lik M/369 21/11/2012
4.Mr Ching Wai Hong M/371 20/12/2012
5.Mr Lee Chin Sheng M/372 20/12/2012
6.Mr Cheah Tek Ming M/373 20/12/2012
7.Mr Lio Chee Yeong M/375 17/01/2013
8.Mr Chan Pak Kuan M/379 21/03/2013
9.Mr Isacc Sunder Rajan Packianathan M/380 21/03/2013
Upgraded from Affiliate to Member
1.Miss Diana Chang Kuok Eng M/368 21/11/2012
2.Ir. Katheresan a/l Murugan @ Gopal M/374 17/01/2013
3.Mr Oazair bin Huneid Tyeb M/377 21/02/2013
4.Miss Kiran Kaur Ram a/p Ramu Naido M/378 21/02/2013
Associate
1.Mr Joshua Chong Wan Ken A/164 16/08/2012
2.Mr Gunasagaran Kristnan A/165 18/10/2012
3.Mr Oon Chee Koon A/166 18/10/2012
4.En. Fawwaz Fikri bin Shuib A/167 18/10/2012
5.Mr Ching Wai Hong A/168 18/10/2012
6.En. Adi Azhar bin Abdul Majid A/169 18/10/2012
7.Miss Delwyn Low Yi Wen A/170 21/03/2013
8.Mr Tan Meng Yue A/171 23/04/2013
Affiliate M/No. Date Approved
1.Miss Karina Kaur Grewal AF/167 26/07/2012
2.Miss Liew Zhuo Yi AF/168 26/07/2012
3.Mr RA Ganapathy a/l Supermaniam AF/169 26/07/2012
4.Mr Taranjit Singh AF/170 26/07/2012
5.Miss Nanthini a/p Arumugam AF/171 26/07/2012
6.Miss Christina Toh Siu Khim AF/172 26/07/2012
7.Capt. Oh Eng Hoe AF/173 26/07/2012
8.Mr Katheresan a/l Murugan @ Gopal AF/174 26/07/2012
9.Miss Felicia Victor AF/175 18/10/2012
10.Mr Lim Lee Hock AF/176 18/10/2012
11.Mr Ryan Lim Chaen Heng AF/177 21/02/2013
12.Mr Manjeev Singh a/l Ragbir Singh AF/178 20/12/2012
13.Miss Lim Yi Wen AF/179 20/12/2012
14.Mr Choi Jiann Haur AF/180 21/02/2013
15.Mr Liaw Vern Xien AF/181 21/02/2013
16.Miss Gayle Brooke Gabriel AF/182 20/12/2012
17.Miss Angeline Ang Mei Fong AF/183 20/12/2012
18.Mr Jason Gines Anom AF/184 20/12/2012
19.Mr U. Maghandren AF/185 18/10/2012
20.Miss Manpreet Kaur a/p Pritam Singh AF/186 21/02/2013
21.Mr Yee Jun Hong AF/187 23/04/2013
Resignation
1.Mr Chong Thaw Sing F/027 26/07/2012
2.Ms Jacqueline Chang Li-Ching M/179 16/08/2012
3.Mr Thomas Alexander Green M/321 17/01/2013
Deceased
1.Mr Tan Eng Keong F/002 20/03/2013
Panel of Arbitrators listing April 2012 to March 2013
1.Mr S. Ahmed Sarwana (F/044) 19/04/2012
2.Mr Malcolm Holmes, QC (F/090) 26/07/2012
3.Mr. Randolph Khoo Boo Teck (F/095) 18/09/2012
4.Mr Soh Lieh Sieng (F/091) 21/11/2012
5.Ms Elaine Yap Chin Gaik (F/081) 21/11/2012
6.Mr Rajendra Navaratnam (F/097) 20/12/2012
7.Mr Ong Hock Tek (F/066) 17/01/2013
8.Mr Lam Ko Luen (F/089) 17/01/2013
9.Captain Julian Brown (F/094) 21/03/2013
