pinqDR arbitration

What’s in a name—court clarifies emergency arbitration decision is an ‘Order’ and not an ‘Award’ (Ashok Kumar Goel and Vyoman India v EbixCash and others)

Arbitration analysis: The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s interim relief application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act), directing the respondents to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee for the sum of INR 145 crore. After an arbitral award, interim reliefs granted by the Delhi High Court, an emergency arbitration decision (EA Decision), and the arbitral tribunal’s order, the respondents’ failure to abide by the decisions led the petitioners to file the present application. The court recognized the distinction between an ‘award’ and an ‘order’ by rejecting the respondents’ contention that the EA Decision was an award that had to be enforced under Part II of the Arbitration Act. The court held that the objective of section 9 is to not defeat the purpose of arbitration but recognize party autonomy as the bedrock of arbitration. This decision sheds light on the binding nature of an emergency arbitration decision by classifying it as ‘order’ and the recourse available for interim relief even in international commercial arbitrations. Written by Neeti Sachdeva, registrar and secretary general, and Charvi Krishna, case manager at Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA).

‘Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract’—Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies scope of arbitration agreement (COSCO Shipping v PT OKI)

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an appeal against the dismissal of an application for an anti-suit injunction restraining the first respondent from continuing foreign court proceedings which had allegedly been brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. Although the foreign court proceedings involved a tortious claim in respect of damage to a trestle bridge caused by a vessel owned by the appellant, it was held that the claim arose out of or was in connection with certain bills of lading evidencing contracts of carriage entered into between the appellant and the first respondent, and had therefore been brought in breach of the arbitration agreement contained in each bill of lading. The appeal was allowed, and an anti-suit injunction granted. In the course of its decision, the court clarified the ambit and scope of the phrase ‘dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract’, which (either in these exact terms or some variation thereof) is commonly found in dispute resolution agreements. The court also provided useful guidance on when a dispute beyond the terms of a contract may nonetheless fall within the scope of an arbitration clause employing such terms. Written by KOH Swee Yen senior counsel, head (International Arbitration Practice) and partner (Commercial & Corporate Disputes Practice) at WongPartnership LLP, and Samuel LOW, associate at WongPartnership LLP.

Arbitration or not arbitration? (Bugsby Property LLC v Omni Bridgeway (Fund 5) Cayman Invt Ltd)

Arbitration analysis: An agreement varying a litigation funding agreement contained a clause providing that any party shall be entitled to resolve a dispute by referring it to a KC who would be instructed to provide a final and binding opinion. The court held that the claimant did not have a good arguable case that the clause was an arbitration agreement, and the court could not, therefore, appoint an arbitrator pursuant to section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Written by Jennifer Haywood, barrister, arbitrator and mediator at Serle Court.

Malaysia (stay of court proceedings in favour of arbitration) Court of Appeal provides guidance on approach to be taken when considering a stay application (Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Stamford College (Malacca) Sdn Bhd)

Arbitration analysis: In dismissing an application to stay court proceedings pending a reference to arbitration, the Malaysian Court of Appeal (“Court of Appeal”) clarified the approach that ought to be taken by the courts when considering a stay application under Section 10 of the Malaysian Arbitration Act. When there is plainly an arbitration agreement but an assertion is made that the arbitration agreement was invalidated because it is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the courts should apply the ‘just and convenient’ approach, ie—in a situation where both the court and the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction and power to investigate and conclude on the validity of an arbitration agreement, the appropriate forum to do so must be the, on balance, more just and convenient forum, having regard to the facts and circumstances in issue. This contrasts with the situation where the existence of the arbitration agreement itself is in issue. In such circumstances, the courts should adopt the ‘prima facie approach’ which is to consider whether there is prima facie an arbitration agreement to resolve disputes. If so, the court should then stay the proceedings and leave the dispute to be decided by the arbitral tribunal. Written by Asya Jamaludin, partner at CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang (Singapore) LLP.