- Singapore—Court of Appeal holds reassignment of contract to original party after commencement of arbitration not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on arbitrator (BXH v BXI)
- What are the practical implications of this case? Why is the decision of interest to arbitration, disputes and commercial lawyers?
- What was the background?
- What did the Singapore Court of Appeal decide?
- Endorsement and application of Paul Smith approach
- Dispute over right to arbitrate following assignment of the underlying agreement is a dispute as to the existence of the arbitration agreement
- The right to arbitrate is parasitic on the substantive right in respect of which arbitration proceedings are brought—the right to arbitrate is assigned together with the debt
- Tribunal has no jurisdiction over a dispute if the substantive right, to which the right to arbitrate attaches, is only reassigned to the claimant after the commencement of arbitration
- Any final comments?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: What is the Singapore courts’ approach where the main contract contains both an arbitration clause and a court jurisdiction clause? What is the relationship between the arbitration agreement and the substantive rights under the contract? How does the assignment of the contract affect the right to arbitrate where it was only assigned after arbitration proceedings have been commenced? Shaun Lee, counsel, and Low Zhe Ning, trainee solicitor, at Bird & Bird ATMD LLP discuss the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decisions on these issues.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial