Singapore High Court: Anti-Suit Injunction Against Foreign Court Proceedings Initiated As A ‘Protective Net’ To Cure Possible Defects In Commencement Of Arbitration

When parties agree to arbitration, they agree to pursue their disputes in arbitration, and not in court.[1] But can a party (defendant) legitimately trigger and maintain simultaneous court proceedings (‘Court Proceedings’) going against an express arbitration agreement as a fallback mechanism (‘Protective Safety Net’) to be on a safer side against any possible defects in…

Singapore Court of Appeal: “Awarding Interest On Or Upon Damages” vs “Interest As Damages” and Whether Time Barred Claim is a jurisdictional or admissibility Issue?

An arbitral tribunal exceeds its jurisdiction if it decides on issues that are beyond the scope of the arbitration clause, upon a proper construction of the clause.[1]  The question then arises as to whether an award in which the tribunal has awarded damages and/or pre-award interest even though there was an express prohibition on “punitive,…

English Commercial High Court (QBD): Whether A Third Party Can Seek An Anti-Suit Injunction Basis Quasi-Contractual Relationship?

When it comes to granting anti-suit injunctions, there is no consistent juridical underpinning in the English judicial precedents.[1] A quasi-contractual anti-suit injunction, is described in Raphael Anti-Suit Injunctions” (2nd ed. 2019) as “injunctions which are granted where the injunction defendant may not fully be party to and bound by a contractual forum clause as a matter of contract law,…

Singapore High Court: Whether The Three-Month Time Limit In Art 34(3) MAL Is Appliable To S. 24 IAA As Well For Award Induced By Fraud Or Corruption?

Whether time limit under Art 34(3) of Model Law is absolute or extendable in exceptional circumstances? Whether the three-month time limit in Art 34(3) is incorporated into Section 24 IAA by the phrase “[n]otwithstanding Article 34(1)” for award induced by fraud or corruption? Section 24(a) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) (‘IAA’) inter alia…

Singapore High Court: Whether an Arbitral Award on Substantive Merits can be Termed as Ruling on Negative Jurisdiction? Does Doctrine of res judicata Have Effect on the Tribunal’s Authority to Hear the Dispute?

In BTN and another v BTP and another, [2019] SGHC 212, the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to either review a partial arbitral award under Section 10(3)(b) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) (‘IAA’) of Singapore, or in the alternative, to set aside the partial award under Section 24(b) of the IAA and…

Singapore High Court: Delivery To A Person Not Entitled Does Not Cause The Bill Of Lading To Be Spent, Bill Is Not Spent Even If The Lending Bank Becomes The Holder Of The Bill After The Cargo Is Discharged

  In [T]he “Yue You 902” and another matter [2019] SGHC 106, the Singapore High Court addressed the issue of whether the bills of lading held by buyer’s lending bank becomes “Spent Bills” if the loan was granted after the discharge of cargo by the carrier thereby making Section 2(2) of the Bills of Lading…