Arbitration Law Monthly

Maniach Pte Ltd
 v
 L Capital Jones Ltd and Another [2016] SGHC 65, a lengthy and closely-reasoned decision of Vinodh Coomaraswamy J
in the High Court of Singapore, raises important issues as to the loss of the right to seek a stay by an applicant who has allegedly taken a step in the judicial proceedings. The increasingly familiar context is that of minority shareholder protection against unfair oppression.

The public policy defence to the enforcement of arbitration awards is regularly pressed into service, although rarely succeeds. T v C [2016] HCCT 23/2015, a recent decision of the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong, is a further illustration of the justified suspicion of the courts to the defence. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu, Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong.

Anti-suit injunctions are most commonly granted to ensure that a party to an arbitration agreement does not commence judicial proceedings in breach of that agreement. However, anti-suit injunctions are also important where the issues between the parties have been resolved in arbitration and the dissatisfied party seeks to reopen them in judicial proceedings. Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2016] EWHC 3010 (Comm), a decision of O’Farrell J, is a good example of this jurisdiction in operation.

Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance is in more or less identical terms to the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 relating to the staying of enforcement of an award pending a decision of the curial courts. A recent decision, Dana Shipping and Trading SA v Sino Channel Asia Ltd HCCT 47/2015, saw the Hong Kong Court of First Instance applying English law principles to the question of ordering security as a condition of stay. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu of Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong.

Pulis v Crystal Palace Football Club [2016] EWHC 2999 (Comm) appears to be yet another case where the serious irregularity challenges set out in section 68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 were invoked in an attempt to rerun the arbitration in court. The challenges were based on failure by the arbitrators to set out detailed reasons in their award for dismissing the claimant’s arguments, leading to allegations of unfairness in the procedure (section 68(2)(a)) and failure to determine all of the issues put to them (section 68(2)(d)).