AYY v AYZ and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Colin Seow AR
• Judgment Date: 16 December 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHCR 22
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 02 November 2015,27 October 2015
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 695 of 2015 (Summons No 4895 of 2015)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Francis Goh and Timothy Chan (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Koh Junxiang and Mark Shan (Clasis LLC)
• Subject Matter: Arbitration,International Arbitration Act,Stay of Arbitral Proceedings
• Published date: 10 March 2016

Colin Seow AR: Introduction

Summons No 4895 of 2015 (“the Application”) was an application taken out by AYY in Originating Summons No 695 of 2015 (“the Action”) seeking a stay, under section 10(9)(a) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), of an arbitration involving AYY, AYZ and AZA (“the Arbitration”) pending the disposal of the Action. The Action comprises AYY’s challenge, under section 10(3) of the Act and/or Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, against the arbitral tribunal’s affirmative ruling on its jurisdiction over the parties’ substantive dispute in the Arbitration. The Action, which is being resisted by AYZ and AZA, is presently pending before the High Court.

The Application was heard on 27 October 2015, where I reserved judgment. On 2 November 2015, I delivered my oral judgment dismissing the Application with costs fixed at $1,500 (all in) awarded to AYZ and AZA. There has since been no appeal filed against my decision.

Given the apparent dearth of published case authorities relating to applications taken out under section 10(9)(a) of the Act, I now issue a note of my oral judgment with a view to sow some jurisprudential seeds in the existing corpus of law which, hopefully, might one day again be of aid when a similar stay application has to be considered in another case.

Note of the oral judgment

Section 10(9) of the Act provides as follows:

Appeal on ruling of jurisdiction

10.—(1) This section shall have effect notwithstanding Article 16(3) of the Model Law.

(2) An arbitral tribunal may rule on a plea that it has no jurisdiction at any stage of the arbitral proceedings.

(3) If the arbitral tribunal rules — (a) on a plea as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction; or (b) on a plea at any stage of the arbitral proceedings that it has no jurisdiction,

any party may, within 30 days after having received notice of that ruling, apply to the High Court to decide the matter.

[…]

(9) Where an application is made pursuant to Article 16(3) of the Model Law or this section — (a) such application shall not operate as a stay of the arbitral proceedings or of execution of any award or order made in the arbitral proceedings unless the High Court orders otherwise […]

[emphasis added]

At the hearing of the Application, there was no case authority cited to me which dealt specifically with the proper test to be applied for...