There are reasons why a party to an arbitration contract may find itself before a court of law rather than an arbitral tribunal.
Introduction
Arbitration clauses are found in a wide variety of contracts and Singapore judges frown on any attempt by a party to such a clause to avoid going to arbitration by rushing to the court instead. Therefore, when a party to a contract agrees that any disputes thereunder would be resolved through arbitration, it should be very surprised to find itself before a court of law rather than an arbitral tribunal. It should be doubly surprised if that court were to allow the proceedings to continue rather than being stayed in favor of arbitration.
Yet this can happen for a number of reasons. One instance is where an arbitration agreement is not well drafted so that, for example, the dispute falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Another is where the claim involves matters that are not arbitrable, for example, where certain insolvency issues arise.
Generally, however, the courts will try to uphold an arbitration agreement. There are numerous cases that demonstrate a clear preference by judges to enforce the obligation to arbitrate. One such case is the subject of this article. Yet this case also at the same time demonstrates the limits of an arbitration agreement. This case is Rals International Pte Ltd v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA [2016] SGCA 53.
The salient facts
Rals International Pte Ltd (hereinafter, “Rals”) was a Singapore company which carried on the business of processing raw cashew nuts and exporting processed cashew nuts. Rals had entered into an agreement with Oltremare SRL (“Oltremare”), an Italian company, to purchase from Oltremare equipment to shell and process raw cashew nuts. This agreement shall be referred to as “the Supply Agreement”.
This story is from the September 2018 edition of Legal Era.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber ? Sign In
This story is from the September 2018 edition of Legal Era.
Start your 7-day Magzter GOLD free trial to access thousands of curated premium stories, and 9,000+ magazines and newspapers.
Already a subscriber? Sign In
If You Think Positive Covid Is A Big Opportunity
Senior Vice President and Head of Legal, ESSAR CAPITAL, Badrinath Durvasula, holds forth on his professional journey, the essence of leadership, working from home, books and more…
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
JOINT VENTURE TRANSACTIONS
NEW ARBITRATION RULES
PUBLISHED BY THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION (LCIA) AND INTERNATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (ICC)
M&A in the time of COVID and beyond
What is clear for those engaging in cross-border M&A is that countries around the world are becoming increasingly protective of their economies and industries, with new rules being introduced and existing rules being more widely applied
SWITZERLAND A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO FRAUD
Swiss law interprets the offense of fraud in a special way where in addition to the characteristics of deception and damage as known in many jurisdictions, a qualified lie, i.e. a malicious approach, is required
JOINT VENTURE DISPUTES MEDIATING
Mediation has shown itself to be a powerful tool for bringing a speedy and effective end to crossborder disputes while preserving the commercial relationship between them.
Recognition of HONG KONG INSOLVENCY PROCEEDINGS IN MAINLAND CHINA
A TEST CASE IN THE MAKING?
CONFIDENTIALITY IN ARBITRATION: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SINGAPORE
Two recent developments in Singapore case law and legislation reflect a willingness to preserve confidentiality related obligations in all arbitrations
ESSENTIAL GOODS SERVICES UNDER IBC
WHAT DOES IT ESSENTIALLY MEAN?
A BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S NEW VISION FOR THE AMERICAN WORKPLACE
A LOOK AT THE KEY CHANGES PRESIDENT-ELECT BIDEN IS LIKELY TO MAKE ONCE HE TAKES OFFICE