Arbitration Law Monthly

Sections 43 and 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 confer upon the court limited powers to order the attendance of a witness before a tribunal to give oral evidence or to produce documents, and to preserve property - including documents - which are the subject of the proceedings. The limits of these sections are apparent from the judgment of Calver J in VXJ v FY and Others [2025] EWHC 2394 (Comm), in which it was made clear that the powers do not extend to a general disclosure obligation upon non-parties.

In DRO v DRP [2025] SGHC 255 Chua Lee Ming J in the High Court of Singapore considered the vexed question of whether compliance with the various pre-arbitration steps for resolving a dispute is a matter going to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The Singapore Court took a view consistent with the English courts, that the question is procedural rather than jurisdictional.

In Alrubie v Chelsea Football Club Ltd and Another [2025] EWHC 541 (Comm); [2025] Lloyd's Rep Plus 37 David Quest KC considered an application for a stay of proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The outcome was a standard grant of a stay in circumstances where the dispute between the parties fell within an arbitration clause.

In Sapura Fabrication Sdn Bhd and Others v GAS [2025] SGCA 13 the Singapore Court of Appeal discussed at length the principles to be applied where a company in administration or equivalent insolvency proceedings which imposed a moratorium on claims against it faced claims in arbitration. The question was whether the arbitration claims should be carved out from the moratorium and allowed to proceed.