Arbitration Law Monthly

The Singapore Court, in Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 173, addressed an important issue relating to the enforcement of arbitration awards. The key issue for Philip Pillai J was whether an award creditor was entitled to seek a winding-up order against the award debtor without being faced with defences to the enforcement of the award available under the New York Convention in ordinary enforcement proceedings. The court’s view was that a winding-up petition is not an enforcement measure for the purposes of the Convention.

The English courts will grant an anti-suit injunction under s37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to prevent a party to an arbitration clause from commencing judicial proceedings in breach of that clause. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Kenya Ltd v Bolster Shipping Co Ltd [2010] EWHC 1732 (Comm) is a rather curious case, involving Mexican procedures, where the defendant sought to join the applicant to judicial proceedings being brought against the applicant in Mexico. The question for Tomlinson J, which he answered in the negative, was whether the application constituted a breach of the arbitration clause.

Price v Carter [2010] EWHC 1451 (TCC) is of interest at two levels. First, it sets out what is and what is not permissible when an arbitral tribunal appoints its own expert to resolve factual issues. Secondly, it raises once again the old question of exactly when the 28-day period within which an appeal is to be brought against an award (laid down by s70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996, starts to run when there has been an application to the arbitrators under the slip rule in s57 of the 1996 Act.

In England, stay of judicial proceedings is mandatory where the court is satisfied that there is a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement. In Singapore the position is the same where the arbitration is an international one (under the International Arbitration Act), but if the arbitration is domestic in that both parties are from Singapore then the court merely has a discretion to stay (under the Arbitration Act). In practice, however, stays are generally granted. A common issue under both regimes is, however, whether the court has power to impose conditions on the grant of a stay or whether it must be unconditional. In Drydocks World-Singapore Pte Ltd v Jurong Port Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 185 Nathaniel Khng AR has ruled that the power to impose conditions is to be exercised sparingly.

In B v A [2010] EWHC 1626 (Comm) the law applicable to the substantive dispute was Spanish law. The majority award was attacked by the dissenting arbitrator as one which had disregarded the relevant provisions of Spanish law. Given that an English court has

In Kaye v Nu Skin UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 3509 (Ch) the claimant alleged that an arbitration clause in an English law contract providing for arbitration in Utah was not binding. In line with its usual practice, the English court refused to stay its own proceedings and chose to deal with the question of validity rather than refer it to the arbitrators.