Arbitration Law Monthly

The decision of Sacofa Sdn Bhd v Super Sea Cable Networks Pte Ltd and Another [2024] SGHC 54 raised a number of issues on the interpretation of an arbitration clause where there had been a partial carve out of issues under a separate agreement. The key point of interest in the decision is, however, the court's approach to the question whether a decision of an enforcing court had preclusive effect where a later challenge to the award was made in the curial court.

Section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides that: "Aparty to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought ... in respect of a matter which under the agreement is to be referred to arbitration may ... apply to the court in which the proceedings have been brought to stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter". There is conflicting authority on the meaning of the word "matter" as used in section 9.

It is settled law that an arbitral tribunal cannot wind up a company. In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation [2023] UKPC 33; [2023] 2 Lloyd's Rep 527, an appeal to the Privy Council from the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands, the further question was whether the disputes which have given rise to a winding-up petition are arbitrable so that the winding-up petition can be stayed pending the outcome of the arbitration.