When a claim is filed in Court in breach of an arbitration agreement, the defendant’s key recourse is to seek an anti-suit injunction at the national courts of the seat of the arbitration to restrain the counterparty. Such applications are usually heavily contested as the counterparty would invariably raise various defences as to why the court action should proceed. If the claimant’s position is that the dispute is not arbitrable, how should the Court consider such an argument? Should the Court consider the issue of arbitrability under the law governing the arbitration agreement or the law of the seat of arbitration?
In Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings v Anupam Mittal [2021] SGHC 244, the Singapore High Court was faced with the exact issue above. The decision is novel as this is the first time that the Singapore Courts or the Courts of the Commonwealth jurisdictions have decided this issue. In this Update, we highlight the key points of the Court’s judgment.
For more information, click here to read the full Legal Update.
