Arbitration Law Monthly

In Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA v Rals International Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 264 Vinodh Coomaraswamy J considered the inherent conflict between the obligation of contracting parties to go to arbitration and the autonomy of obligations under negotiable instruments. The case concerned an assignee of a negotiable instrument, the question being whether the claim had to be brought by the assignee against the defaulting purchaser in arbitration. The court concluded that the arbitration clause did not extend to the assignee.

The English courts will, wherever possible, seek to enforce an agreement between the parties to refer disputes to arbitration. If proceedings are commenced abroad, an anti-suit injunction will normally be issued as a matter of course, unless there are powerful reasons why that should not happen. In Crescendo Maritime Co and Another v Bank of Communications Co Ltd and Others [2015] EWHC 3364 (Comm) it was unsuccessfully argued that there were exceptional grounds for refusing relief.

The Court of Appeal in Hashwani and Others v OMV Maurice Energy Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1171 has confirmed the long-standing approach of the English courts to the effect that, if there is a dispute as to the existence or scope of an arbitration agreement, the court will rarely exercise its inherent jurisdiction to stay its own proceedings and allow the arbitrators the first opportunity to resolve the matter.

The familiar argument in Ameropa SA v Lithuanian Shipping [2015] EWHC 3847 (Comm) was that the arbitrator, in an arbitration conducted on paper, reached his conclusion by relying on a matter not argued before him. The arbitrator did indeed refer to his own textbook on the subject. Nevertheless, Flaux J was able to decide with relative ease that the arguments put forward formed the basis of the award.