Select Page

Our Ms. Judy Lim Pek Eng & Joshua Wu were counsels for 5 individuals in their appeal against the dismissal of the individuals’ application for stay pending reference arbitration pursuant to Section 10 of the Arbitration Act 2005.

The court of first instance dismissed the individuals’ application for stay, and was of the view that the arbitration clause was null, void or inoperative because it did not specify the seat of arbitration and the applicable rules (collectively referred to as “the Additional Details“).

On appeal, amongst others, we argued that the Additional Details were unnecessary in light of:

(i) Sections 9, 21, and 22 of the Arbitration Act 2005;

(ii) The doctrine of harmonious construction, the principle that Parliament does not legislate in vain, and the principle that a Court should not read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself; and

(iii) The concept of ad hoc arbitration, and according to sample ad hoc arbitration clauses.

Today, the appeal was allowed and the civil suit against the 5 individuals is stayed pending arbitration.