Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud

Arbitration has been recognised as one of the alternative dispute resolutions in construction industry. By the insertion of arbitration clause in a construction contract, it requires parties to resolve any disputes through an arbitrator instead of a judge. But in some circumstances, the parties of t...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Author:	Zakaria, Intan Bayani
Format:	Thesis
Language:	English
Published:	2010
Subjects:	TH Building construction
Online Access:	http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/36564/5/IntanBayaniZakariaMFAB2010.pdf
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	my-utm-ep.36564
record_format	uketd_dc
spelling	my-utm-ep.365642017-09-21T05:33:26Z Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud 2010-07 Zakaria, Intan Bayani TH Building construction Arbitration has been recognised as one of the alternative dispute resolutions in construction industry. By the insertion of arbitration clause in a construction contract, it requires parties to resolve any disputes through an arbitrator instead of a judge. But in some circumstances, the parties of the contract must refer their dispute to the court. Under Arbitration Act 1952, certain disputes had been barred from arbitration including fraud related disputes. The disputant parties must apply to the High Court for fraud related dispute settlement. Currently under Arbitration Act 2005 which applied UNCITRAL Model Law, provision that takes away arbitrator’s jurisdiction to deal with question of fraud has not been brought into force. Therefore, this research has been done to explore whether in the absence of express provision relating to fraud, does it really means that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to deal with this matter. The research has been conducted by analyzing relevant cases reported in Malaysian law journals and other countries that follow the UNCITRAL Model Law which included United Kingdom, India and Hong Kong. The result shows that fraud is a question of law. Subsequently, when fraud has been established as a question of law, arbitrator has no jurisdiction to deal with it. With reference to arbitration agreements in the standard forms of contract and institutional arbitration rules, there is no express provision that gives power to arbitrator to deal with fraud. In Arbitration Act 2005, does not expressly prohibits arbitrator from dealing with question of law. Therefore, if the parties, in the arbitration agreement, agree to give such power to the arbitrator, then he would have such jurisdiction. 2010-07 Thesis http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/36564/ http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/36564/5/IntanBayaniZakariaMFAB2010.pdf application/pdf en public masters Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment Faculty of Built Environment
institution	Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
collection	UTM Institutional Repository
language	English
topic	TH Building construction
spellingShingle	TH Building construction Zakaria, Intan Bayani Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud
description	Arbitration has been recognised as one of the alternative dispute resolutions in construction industry. By the insertion of arbitration clause in a construction contract, it requires parties to resolve any disputes through an arbitrator instead of a judge. But in some circumstances, the parties of the contract must refer their dispute to the court. Under Arbitration Act 1952, certain disputes had been barred from arbitration including fraud related disputes. The disputant parties must apply to the High Court for fraud related dispute settlement. Currently under Arbitration Act 2005 which applied UNCITRAL Model Law, provision that takes away arbitrator’s jurisdiction to deal with question of fraud has not been brought into force. Therefore, this research has been done to explore whether in the absence of express provision relating to fraud, does it really means that the arbitrator has jurisdiction to deal with this matter. The research has been conducted by analyzing relevant cases reported in Malaysian law journals and other countries that follow the UNCITRAL Model Law which included United Kingdom, India and Hong Kong. The result shows that fraud is a question of law. Subsequently, when fraud has been established as a question of law, arbitrator has no jurisdiction to deal with it. With reference to arbitration agreements in the standard forms of contract and institutional arbitration rules, there is no express provision that gives power to arbitrator to deal with fraud. In Arbitration Act 2005, does not expressly prohibits arbitrator from dealing with question of law. Therefore, if the parties, in the arbitration agreement, agree to give such power to the arbitrator, then he would have such jurisdiction.
format	Thesis
qualification_level	Master's degree
author	Zakaria, Intan Bayani
author_facet	Zakaria, Intan Bayani
author_sort	Zakaria, Intan Bayani
title	Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud
title_short	Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud
title_full	Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud
title_fullStr	Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud
title_full_unstemmed	Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud
title_sort	arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud
granting_institution	Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Faculty of Built Environment
granting_department	Faculty of Built Environment
publishDate	2010
url	http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/36564/5/IntanBayaniZakariaMFAB2010.pdf
_version_	1747816435059523584

Arbitrator’s jurisdiction to resolve disputes relating to allegation of fraud

Similar Items