Arbitration : Stay of proceedings - Action based on insurance claim - Liability admitted but quantum disputed by insurer - Whether action should be stayed pending arbitration - Whether arbitration agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed - Whether ancillary reliefs sought could be dealt with by arbitral court - Arbitration Act 2005, ss 8, 10(1), 18 - Rules of Court 2012, O 69 r 10(3)

Civil Procedure : Stay of proceedings - Action based on insurance claim - Liability admitted but quantum disputed by insurer - Whether action should be stayed pending arbitration - Whether arbitration agreement null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed - Whether ancillary reliefs sought could be dealt with by arbitral court - Arbitration Act 2005, ss 8, 10(1), 18 - Rules of Court 2012, O 69 r 10(3)

This was the appellant's appeal against the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, which allowed the respondent's application for stay of proceedings of the appellant's action against the respondent pending arbitration. The appellant, an aluminium smelting plant company, brought the action against the respondent, an insurance company, following an insurance claim for its machinery breakdown and loss of profits as a result of a temporary shutdown of its plant that stemmed from a power outage in Sarawak. The respondent admitted liability but did not agree to the sum of RM125 million claimed by the appellant. The respondent relied on various exclusion clauses in the insurance policy executed between them ("the policy") to substantially reduce the amount to RM3.7 million. In its action, the appellant sought, inter alia, for full indemnity in respect of all losses and damages suffered as a result of the incident. The appellant also prayed for various declaratory orders, damages for breach of the terms of the policy and/or fraud committed by the respondent in respect of the issuance of the policy. The respondent then applied for the stay of the proceedings pursuant to s 10(1), Arbitration Act 2005 ('the 2005 Act') contending that the matter should be arbitrated as the sole issue in the action was in relation to the quantum to be paid, liability being admitted. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that there was no arbitration agreement as the purported arbitration clauses were not part of the policy but of a previous policy that had expired. The issues raised were whether: (1) the requirements of s 10(1) of the 2005 Act were fulfilled; (2) a valid arbitration agreement existed; (3) the claim for ancillary reliefs could be dealt with by an arbitral tribunal; and (4) cl 4.9(b) of the policy deemed as the court clause and O 69 r 10(3), Rules of Court 2012 ("ROC") were applicable.