INSAF 2003 Vol. 2.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
INSAF Vol XXXII No 2 KDN PP 987/11/2003 ISSN 01268538 June 2003 Published by the Bar Council, Nos. 13, 15 & 17, Jalan Leboh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel No. (03) 2031 3003. Fax Nos. (03) 2026 1313 / 2034 2825 / 2072 5818. E-mail: [email protected] INSAF PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 2003/2004 EDITOR Malik Imtiaz Sarwar MEMBERS Hj Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari M Mathialagan Dato’ Mohd Sofian Abd Razak P K Yang Mr Yeo Yang Poh Hj Mohamed Apandi Ali Cecil Rajendra Malik Imtiaz Sarwar S Gunasegaran Ragunath Kesavan BAR COUNCIL 2003/2004 OFFICE BEARERS Hj Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari (Chairman) Mr Yeo Yang Poh (Vice-Chairman) Mohd Sofian Abdul Razak, Dato’ (Secretary) Malik Imtiaz Sarwar (Treasurer) MEMBERS Mr Mah Weng Kwai Mr Aloysius Ng Chee Seng Ms Hendon Hj Mohamed Mr R R Chelvarajah Dato’ Dr Cyrus Das Mr Gana Muthusamy Mr Cecil Rajendra Mr P Suppiah Mr Manjeet Singh Dhillon Mr Ong Siew Wan Mr Roy Rajasingham Mr Hon Kai Ping Ms Low Beng Choo Ms Faridah bt Yusoff Ms Yasmeen bt Hj Mohd Shariff Hj Asmadi b Awang Hj Hamid Sultan Abu Backer Mr Indran Rajalingam Mr Jerald Gomez Mr Jegadeeson Thavasu Mr Ragunath Kesavan Hj Vazeer Alam Mydin Meera Ms Ambiga Sreenevasan Ms Petra Oon Beng Ai Mr Steven Tai Tet Chuan Dato' R Rajasingam Mr S Ravichandran Ms Hajah Shamsuriah bt Sulaiman Mr Tony Woon Yeow Thong Mr M Mathialagan Mr Krishna Dallumah Mr Wan Mansor b Dato' Hj Wan Mohamed The Insaf Publication Committee welcomes articles for publication in INSAF. The Committee, however, reserves the right, at its discretion, not to publish any articles, or if published, to edit them for space, clarity and content. The views expressed in any editorials or articles published are not necessarily the views of the Bar Council. COVER PHOTOGRAPH features Y.T.M. Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj ibni Almarhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Shah. Affectionately known and loved as ‘Bapa Merdeka’. Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj was the first Prime Minister of Malaysia. He completed his Bachelor of Arts in law and history in 1924 and went on to read law at the Inner Temple in 1938. However, his studies were interrupted by the Second World War when he had to return home. He returned to England in 1947 and was duly called to the Bar there in 1949. The Tunku was a great respecter of the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers between the Executive, the Judiciary and the Legislature. During his premiership (1957-1970) there was no record of any accusation of selective prosecution, laws being amended to suit Executive requirements or interference with the Judiciary. It was during the Tunku’s tenure that our Judiciary and legal system achieved its pinnacle of esteem amongst Commonwealth countries. The front cover photograph was taken on the occasion of the Tunku’s call to the Bar in England in 1951. The photograph is affectionately inscribed to former Federal Court Judge the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader. The year 2003 marks the centenary of the Tunku’s birth. Text by Cecil Rajendra CONTENTS Revocation of Authority and Removal of Arbitrator by Sundra Rajoo 1 The ‘Sun Rises’ Illuminating the Orang Asli’s Native Customary Rights to Land - Let it Not ‘Set’ by Jeswynn Rohan Yogaratnam 35 The Role of Fundamental Liberties in the Evolution of Malaysia as a Democratic Society by Kevin Kam Soon Aun 50 The War Against Iraq: A Legal Perspective by Malik Imtiaz Sarwar 65 The Legality of War Against Iraq Without United Nations Sanction by Tommy Thomas 74 Archipelagoes in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by Selvanathan Subramaniam 101 Stay of Proceedings to Refer to Arbitration - Conditional or Unconditional Appearance? by Teng Kam Wah 116 (2003) XXXII No 2 INSAF 1 REVOCATION OF AUTHORITY AND REMOVAL OF ARBITRATOR SUNDRA RAJOO* At Common Law t common law, the authority of the arbitrator is revocable. Given the Auncertainty of the legal nature of the relationship between the arbitrator and the parties, either party may revoke the authority of a named arbitrator at any time prior to the making of the award1. There was some debate whether at common law the court had the power to revoke the authority or remove an arbitrator. The 3rd Edition of Halsbury’s Laws of England2 states that the court has neither been given nor claimed the power to remove an arbitrator. On the other hand, Walton and Victoria have suggested that the court has power to remove an arbitrator for misconduct or delay but it has no power to replace him3. However, the court has inherent jurisdiction to ensure that arbitration proceedings are conducted judicially. In common law arbitration, the parties must be given a fair hearing otherwise the resultant award will not be enforced * Chartered Arbitrator, Architect and Town Planner, B. Sc (HBP) Hons (USM), LLB Hons (London), CLP, Grad Dip in Architecture (TCAE), Grad Dip in Urban and Regional Planning (TSIT), M.Sc. in Construction Law and Arbitration (With Merit) (LMU), MPhil in Law (Manchester), Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration (CIArb), APAM, APPM, FCIArb, FMIArb, FSIArb, FICA, MAE, ARAIA. Also Immediate Past Chairman, Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, Malaysia Branch, Country Representative, Dispute Review Board Foundation. 1 Vivion v Wilde (1609) 2 Brownl 290; Milne v Gratrix (1806) 7 East 608; Marsh v Bulteel (1822) 5 B & Ald 507; Haggett v Welsh (1826) 1 Sim 134; Slee v Coxon (1830) 10 B & C 483; Bright v Durnell (1836) 4 Dowl 756; Mills v Bayley (1863) 2 H & C 36; Thomson v Anderson (1870) LR 9 Eq 523; Re Rouse & Co Ltd and Meier & Co Ltd (1871) LR 6 CP 212; Randell, Saunders & Co Ltd v Thompson (1876) 1 QBD 748; Re Smith & Service and Nelson & Sons (1890) 25 QBD 545. 2 Halsbury’s Laws of England, (3rd Edn), Vol. 2 at p 3. 3 A Walton and M Vitoria, Russell on the Law of Arbitration (20th Edn, 1982) p 53. The Journal of the Malaysian Bar Revocation of Authority and 2 Removal of Arbitrator (2003) XXXII No 2 by the court4. The court has power to remit an award to the arbitrator for reconsideration or to set it aside on similar grounds as under the statutes5. It is the authority of the arbitrator that is revoked and not the reference to arbitration6. The principle applies not just to the arbitrator appointed by the revoking party, but to an arbitrator appointed by the other party or by some other means as was the case in In re an Arbitration between Fraser v Ehrensperger7 where the arbitrator whose authority had been revoked by party A had been appointed by party B as sole arbitrator in the light of A’s default in appointing his own arbitrator. A party to an oral arbitration agreement can repudiate it by revoking the arbitrator’s authority or otherwise frustrating the arbitral process. Such unilateral withdrawal of the arbitrator’s mandate by a party would constitute a breach of a valid and binding contract at common law. Since the injured party cannot specifically enforce a contract to arbitrate, he will be entitled only to damages based on the circumstances of the case8. Both parties are entitled to sue on the dispute upon abandonment of the arbitration. Indeed, either party can sue on the dispute even while arbitral proceedings are pending for the existence of submission does not oust the jurisdiction of the court9. Under the Arbitration Act 1952 (Act 93) Section 3 of the Arbitration Act 1952 (Act 93) removes the self-apparent difficulties and provides that the authority of an arbitrator or umpire appointed by or by virtue of a written arbitration agreement is, unless a contrary intention 4 Re, Morphett (1845) 2 Dow & L 967; Walker v King (1724) 9 Mod 63. 5 A Walton and M Vitoria, Russell on the Law of Arbitration (20th Edn, 1982) p 53. 6 Harcourt v Ramsbottom (1820) 1 Jac & W 505; Moffat v Cornelius (1878) 39 LT 102; Piercy v Young (1879) 14 ChD 200. 7 (1883) 12 QBD 310, CA (Eng). See also Siemens AG v Dutco Construction Co (Pvt) Ltd (1992) 18 YB Com Arb 140. 8 Doleman & Sons v Ossett Corp [1912] 3 KB 257 at 262. 9 Thompson v Charnock (1799) 3 TR 139; Mitchell v Harris (1701) 1 Ld Raym 671; Harris v Reynolds (1845) 7 QB 71. The Journal of the Malaysian Bar (2003) XXXII No 2 INSAF 3 is expressed in the agreement, irrevocable except by leave of the High Court. The authority of the arbitrator is irrevocable without leave of court even though he had been appointed orally10. Lord Esher MR in Smith and Services and Nelson & Sons11 in discussing the word irrevocable under a repealed English Act, explained that it did not mean that the agreement to refer is irrevocable ‘because that always was in the true sense irrevocable’ but the Act makes the authority of the arbitrator irrevocable where he has once been appointed12. Section 3 of the Arbitration Act 1952 (Act 93) also presumes that the court has such powers which it alone exercises. The power to grant leave is discretionary to be exercised according to the circumstances of each particular case. The court will consider the balance of convenience and inconvenience in exercising the discretion. Parties will not be relieved from an arbitral tribunal they had chosen because they fear that the award may go against them. This power operates in a negative manner. The parties themselves can by agreement remove their arbitral tribunal in whole or in part, or agree to revoke their submission to arbitration.