Arbitration has been growing in popularity as a preferred mechanism for resolving commercial disputes. Businesses engaged in international trade, construction, aviation, logistics, technology, and finance increasingly favour arbitration because it offers neutrality, confidentiality, procedural flexibility, and the prospect of easier cross-border enforcement of awards. These advantages are particularly attractive in Malaysia, which has developed into a recognised regional arbitration hub through institutions such as the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC). However, the effectiveness of arbitration depends fundamentally on one principle: consent. The parties must clearly and unequivocally agree to submit disputes to arbitration.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal’s decision in Dnata Airport Services Pty Ltd v Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc [2026] NSWCA 105 provides a timely reminder that courts will not manufacture consent where contractual drafting fails to establish a binding agreement to arbitrate. The case highlights the critical importance of precise drafting and demonstrates the risks associated with loosely worded dispute resolution clauses. The lessons from the case are equally relevant to Malaysian businesses and legal practitioners involved in cross-border transactions and commercial contracting.
“The most important lesson from Dnata is that precision matters.”
The Rise of Consensual Arbitration The increasing demand for arbitration reflects broader developments in global commerce. Parties often seek to avoid the unpredictability of foreign court systems, lengthy litigation processes, and jurisdictional disputes. Arbitration offers an alternative forum that can be tailored to the parties’ needs, with specialist decision-makers and internationally enforceable outcomes. Furthermore, legislation such as Australia’s International Arbitration Act 1974 and Malaysia’s Arbitration Act 2005 (Revised 2011), support the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards as viable alternatives to traditional court-based dispute resolution. Malaysia’s continued support for arbitration has also strengthened confidence among both domestic and international investors seeking efficient dispute resolution mechanisms.
Yet the legitimacy of arbitration rests on party autonomy. Unlike litigation, which is imposed by law, arbitration derives its authority from agreement. Consequently, courts consistently require clear evidence that the parties intended to refer disputes to arbitration. Dnata shows that where that intention is uncertain, Australian courts will retain jurisdiction rather than compel arbitration. Malaysian courts have likewise emphasised the importance of the parties’ contractual intentions when determining whether disputes should be referred to arbitration.
Background to the Dnata Decision
The dispute arose from a workplace injury suffered by a Dnata employee while unloading cargo from a Polar Air aircraft at Sydney Airport. The employee commenced negligence proceedings against Polar Air. In response, Polar Air brought contractual cross-claims against Dnata, including claims for indemnity and breach of contract under an International Air Transport Association (IATA) Standard Ground Handling Agreement (SGHA).
Dnata sought to stay those contractual proceedings and refer them to arbitration under Article 9 of the SGHA. The relevant clause required the parties to attempt to resolve disputes themselves and then provided that, failing resolution, “the parties may elect” to resolve the dispute through arbitration. It further stated that if the parties failed to agree on an arbitration process, the dispute would be resolved by the courts specified in the agreement.
The central issue before the Court was whether Article 9 constituted an enforceable arbitration agreement within the meaning of section 7 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth). Although the dispute arose in Australia, the drafting issues considered by the Court commonly arise in commercial agreements used throughout the Asia-Pacific region, including Malaysia.
The NSW Court’s Reasoning
The NSW Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed Dnata’s appeal. It agreed with the primary judge that Article 9 did not create a binding obligation to arbitrate. Instead, it merely provided the parties with the option of arbitration if they mutually agreed to pursue that course. A key feature of the Court’s reasoning was its interpretation of the phrase “the parties may elect”. The Court held that this wording required both parties to make a joint decision to arbitrate. It did not confer a unilateral right on either party to compel arbitration. Had the drafters intended unilateral election, they could have used language such as “either party may refer the dispute to arbitration”. The absence of such language was significant.
The Court also noted that the clause contemplated a further agreement concerning the arbitration process. If the parties failed to reach that agreement, the dispute would proceed in court. This structure indicated that arbitration was contingent upon future consensus rather than being a presently binding contractual commitment. Accordingly, the clause amounted to little more than an “agreement to agree”.
Whilst the case sits uneasily alongside the modern judicial policy favouring arbitration, with so much of the written evidence stacked against Dnata, it is unsurprising that the Court reaffirmed orthodox contractual principles and adopted a relatively strict approach to the formation of arbitration agreements without presuming an intention to arbitrate. The reasoning serves as a useful reference point for Malaysian practitioners drafting dispute resolution provisions under Malaysian law and for parties selecting Malaysia as the seat of arbitration.
“Commercial parties frequently adopt standard form contracts and precedents without detailed scrutiny of dispute resolution provisions. The Dnata case demonstrates the dangers of this approach.”
Why the Case Matters
The decision is significant because it reinforces a fundamental principle of arbitration law: the mere inclusion of the word “arbitration” in a contract does not necessarily create an arbitration agreement. What matters is whether the contract contains a sufficiently clear commitment to submit disputes to arbitration.
Commercial parties frequently adopt standard form contracts and precedents without detailed scrutiny of dispute resolution provisions. The Dnata case demonstrates the dangers of this approach. A clause that appears, at first glance, to provide for arbitration may ultimately prove unenforceable if it lacks sufficiently precise language pointing to mandatory arbitration. This lesson is particularly relevant in Malaysia, where parties often rely on international standard-form agreements in sectors such as aviation, construction, energy, shipping, and logistics.
Drafting Lessons
The most important lesson from Dnata is that precision matters. If parties genuinely wish disputes to be resolved through arbitration, the agreement should:
- Use mandatory language, such as “shall be referred to arbitration” rather than permissive expressions like “may elect”.
- Clearly identify whether either party may initiate arbitration unilaterally.
- Specify the seat of arbitration.
- Identify the applicable arbitration rules.
- Provide a mechanism for appointing arbitrators.
- Avoid leaving essential procedural matters to future agreement, even if international arbitration law increasingly recognises that parties need not specify every procedural detail.
- Ensure that any multi-tier dispute resolution process culminates in a binding obligation to arbitrate if negotiation or mediation fails.
For Malaysian parties, consideration should also be given to whether Malaysia will be chosen as the seat of arbitration and whether institutional rules, such as those administered by the AIAC, are to apply. A well-drafted clause reduces uncertainty, minimises jurisdictional disputes, and promotes the efficiency and finality that parties seek when choosing arbitration in the first place.
Conclusion
The similarity between the Australian and Malaysian legislative frameworks further enhances the relevance of the Dnata decision to Malaysian practitioners. Both jurisdictions have adopted modern arbitration regimes influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law and place significant emphasis on party autonomy, the enforceability of arbitration agreements, and limited judicial intervention in the arbitral process. As a result, although Dnata was decided under Australian legislation, the Court’s analysis of consent and contractual intention provides useful guidance for Malaysian courts and commercial parties when assessing whether an arbitration clause creates a binding obligation to arbitrate.Dnata demonstrates that arbitration remains a creature of contract. Courts will enforce arbitration agreements, but only where the parties have clearly expressed a binding intention to arbitrate. These principles resonate equally in Malaysia’s arbitration framework and reinforce the importance of careful contractual drafting. This is consistent with many other Commonwealth decisions which indicate that courts may be pro-arbitration by interpreting arbitration agreements broadly, but they will not invent an arbitration agreement.
The decision does not reject the pro-arbitration policy of modern arbitration law. Rather, it confirms that the policy operates after consent has been established, not before.
(We welcome feedback and comments. Please contact mabc@mabc.org.my)