i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

WINDING-UP PETITIONS AND ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS

Paul S Davies*

FamilyMart v Ting Chuan

Introduction

Although “[t]he concept of non-arbitrability is a cornerstone of the process of arbitration”,1 a stable definition of “arbitrability” remains elusive. As the Singapore Court of Appeal observed in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd,2 “the essential criterion of non-arbitrability is whether the subject matter of the dispute is of such a nature as to make it contrary to public policy for that dispute to be resolved by arbitration. Beyond this, the scope and extent of the concept of arbitrability has been left undefined, as a consequence of which, it falls to the courts to trace its proper contours”. This affords national courts (as well as legislators and arbitrators) a margin of discretion when deciding whether competing public policies are sufficiently strong to displace a presumption of arbitrability.

368

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.