Arbitration Law Monthly

Where a contract contains different dispute resolution provisions, it is a settled principle that the court will try to construe the provisions consistently rather than giving rise to a conflict. Thus, where a contract contains both an arbitration clause and a jurisdiction or service of suit clause, the general approach in England is to regard arbitration as the primary means of dispute resolution, with the reference to the court being treated as confined to: curial support for the arbitration; enforcement of any award; or providing a fallback in the event that the parties agree to waive the arbitration clause.

Judicial proceedings are to be stayed where the matter in dispute is to be referred to arbitration. The meaning of “matter” has given rise to a great deal of dispute. The most recent authority on the question is the judgment of Vinodh Coomaraswamy J in the High Court of Singapore in BTY v BUA [2018] SGHC 213. It would seem from this judgment that the position in England and Singapore is much the same.

P (A Company Incorporated in Country A) v D (A Company Incorporated in Country B) and Others [2019] EWHC 1277 (Comm) is one of the comparatively rare cases where a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, based on the ground of breach of the rules of natural justice, has been upheld.

The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has, in Dickson Valora Group (Holdings) Co Ltd and Another v Fan Ji Qian [2019] HKCFI 482, clarified the grounds upon which an anti-suit injunction will be granted in Hong Kong. The case is discussed by Edward Liu and Geoffrey Lai of Hill Dickinson, Hong Kong.

A short but important procedural point arose before the Court of Appeal in General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v State of Libya [2019] EWCA Civ 1110. Where an enforcement order was obtained in England in respect of a state, was there any requirement for either the arbitration claim form or the order itself to be served on the state or could the court dispense with service?