Arbitration Law Monthly

The vexed question of the arbitrability of shareholder disputes has recently been considered by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd [2015] SGCA 57. The Court of Appeal has rejected the complex reasoning at first instance of Quentin Loh J, in Silica Investors Ltd v Tomolugen Holdings Ltd [2014] SGHC 101, and has followed the approach of the English Court of Appeal in Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2012] Ch 333.

The decision of Mimmie Chan J in P v S [2015] HKEC 1707 illustrates the general approach of the Hong Kong courts to allegations of procedural irregularity. The argument here was that the case management directions for the conduct of the arbitration did not afford a proper right to be heard. The decision is considered by Edward Liu, an associate at Reed Smith Richards Butler.

The decision of Andrew Smith J in Mercuria Energy Trading Pte Ltd and Another v Image Mine Products Ltd [2015] EWHC 2930 (Ch) is a relatively straightforward one, granting a permanent anti-suit injunction and allied declaratory relief to the claimant in a case where the defendant had – in breach of the arbitration clause – commenced judicial proceedings in India. The fact that the Indian court was seised of the proceedings was of no weight, and indeed the only real issue was the appropriate wording and scope of the injunction and declarations.

The Arbitration Act 1996 defines “serious irregularity” justifying the setting aside of an award as including reaching a decision contrary to the agreement of the parties. China Property Development (Holdings) Ltd v Mandecly Ltd CACV 92 & 93/2015 is an illustration of an award for a claim that had never been made. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu, Associate, Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong.