Counsel for Tan Sri Vincent Tan and CMP had relied on the AJWA case to support their claim that Section 42 is applicable. In the AJWA case, the Court of Appeal ruled that section 42 of the Act could be appealed if the arbitration agreement was subject to Malaysian law. Both parties may waive the right to settle disputes under an arbitration agreement in force by initiating proceedings before the courts and by initiating an action in such proceedings. However, where a party initiates legal proceedings and the other party objects on the grounds that there is a valid arbitration agreement, the other party may request the party to stay the judicial proceedings and refer the disputes to arbitration, and section 10(1) of the Act provides that it is mandatory for the court to stay the legal proceedings in the absence of a valid arbitration agreement. This is shown by Parliament`s attitude towards the pro-arbitration tribunal within the framework of the law. In Huawei Technologies (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Maxbury Communications Sdn Bhd, the Court of Appeal held that the effect of arguments that a court had failed to take up a matter before it was the cause of the challenge to the arbitral award. The context was that the defendant Huawei had reached an agreement with Maxis on a broadband project. For the realization of the project, Huawei has entered into an agreement with maxbury. A dispute has erupted between Huawei and Maxbury, which has been the subject of a settlement agreement. This settlement agreement contained an arbitration clause.
Section 8 of the 2005 Act forms the basis of the approach that Malaysian law and Malaysian courts now take to arbitration. It states: “No court shall intervene in matters governed by this act, unless this act so provides”. It is a question of defending the philosophy of model law, provided for in the law itself for all cases of potential judicial interference in matters governed by the law.  The doctrine of jurisdiction is also recognized in Malaysia. Section 18(1) of the 2005 Act provides that the arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objection to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.  Malaysian law also recognizes the principle of separability; Indeed, the arbitration agreement is separate from the main contract in which it may be contained.  An arbitration agreement is therefore not invalidated, for example. B because an illegality invalidates the main contract.  The Court of Appeal also held that, if the right of omission sought related to performance guarantees, guarantees and guarantees, the Applicant must also prove that it was fraud or a capacity for scruples. The Court of Appeal, however, warned: “The merits.
Such an allegation must be determined in the arbitration and not by the court. The Court of Justice must avoid engaging in lengthy checks on the merits of such a dispute or allowing itself to be involved in it`. The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the threshold was “high” and that “the court must protect against abuse of process when contractual disputes are increased and disguised as claims of fraud or scruples.” (a) one of the parties to an arbitration agreement has its registered office in a State other than Malaysia at the time of the conclusion of this Agreement; (i) under Malaysian law, the subject matter of the dispute cannot be settled by arbitration; or “national” arbitration, we mean any arbitration that is not international. Part III (§ 40 to 46) of the Arbitration Act governs the procedure of domestic arbitration, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the parties. In deciding whether judicial proceedings should be stayed in favour of arbitration proceedings, the Tribunal does not consider whether there is a dispute between the parties on the case presented, as long as it falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement to make it effective. . . .