Malaysia unveils new arbitration rules as country gears up for liberalisation
The Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA) in Malaysia has introduced a new set of arbitration rules just a month after foreign lawyers got the green light to advise clients in the country without having a local office.
October 24, 2013 at 12:55 AM
3 minute read
The Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA) in Malaysia has introduced a new set of arbitration rules just a month after foreign lawyers got the green light to advise clients in the country without having a local office.
The new rules, which come into effect today, are aimed at bringing Malaysian arbitration proceedings in line with those of more sophisticated markets by incorporating international arbitration standards.
Among the new instructions is a provision for emergency arbitration, giving an option for parties to apply for urgent interim relief, as well as a provision for arbitrators to grant pre-award interest and an option for the consolidation of proceedings and concurrent hearings.
The KLRCA has also sought to enhance its confidentiality rules restraining the cases where the matter can be disclosed, and has revised its schedule of fees and administrative costs so that the apportionment of fees and costs are relative to parties' claims and counterclaims respectively.
"The new rules have made us competitive compared with the other centres for disputes in Asia – we have the same arbitrators but our fees are 20% less," said Sundra Rajoo, the director of KLRCA.
"Prior to March 2010 and despite being the first regional arbitral institution to be established, we were trailing behind the newer arbitral centres in other countries. We had about 10 cases.
"Then last year we did 84 cases, this year we have already done 110 cases and we will do about 130 cases by the year end. So we've seen phenomenol growth. We also have a panel of 576 of foreign and domestic arbitrators, compared with less than 200 previously.
"By 2016 I expect at least 250 cases. We are confident we will continue to grow."
The new arbitration rules coincide with the liberalisation of Malaysia's legal market.
In September, parliament passed its second set of amendments to the Legal Profession Act, allowing foreign law firms to advise clients in Malaysia on a fly-in and fly-out basis as the market opens up, so long as their stay does not exceed 60 days per lawyer per year.
At the same time, authorities clarified the rules for foreign lawyers entering the country for arbitrations, confirming that those seeking to appear as counsel in either international or domestic proceedings would be permitted to enter the country at any time and with no limit on the duration of their stay.
Last year parliament passed the first set of amendments to the act, which specified new rules for allowing foreign firms to open a local base in the country – either as Qualified Foreign Law Firms (QFLF) or through joint law ventures with local outfits.
The country is preparing for an influx of foreign firms once the amendments come into force.
The liberalisation of Malaysia's legal market comes as other jurisdictions including Singapore and Korea have also begun to open up to foreign firms.
The new arbitration rules have been announced amid a similar move by Hong Kong, as all of Asia's main legal hubs look to become a centre for international disputes in the region.
In the second half of 2014, the KLRCA will move to new premises in a bid to boost its infrastructure and modernise its facilities.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCan Law Firms Avoid Landing on the 'Enemy' List During the Trump Administration?
5 minute readLetter From Asia: Will Big Law Ever Bother to Understand Asia Again?
Simpson Thacher, Nishimura, Mori Hamada Assist on KKR's $4B Winning Bid in Japan
Trending Stories
- 1'True Leadership Is About Putting Others First': 2024 In-House Award Winners Inspired, Took Road Less Traveled
- 2A Q&A with Sidley Austin's London Leader
- 3New York-Based Harris Beach Combines With Connecticut-Based Murtha Cullina, Forming NE Powerhouse
- 4New Year, New Am Law 100: Challenges Await These Newly Merged Law Firms
- 5Thursday Newspaper
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250