Reed Smith Client Alerts

This client alert was originally published in Practical Law Arbitration. Reproduced with permission.  This client alert is co-written by Reed Smith Pte Ltd and Resource Law LLC who together form the Reed Smith Resource Law Alliance in Singapore. Reed Smith Pte Ltd is licensed to operate as a foreign law practice in Singapore. Where advice on Singapore law is required, we will refer the matter to and work with licensed Singapore law practices where necessary.

In Heartronics Corp v EPI Life Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGHCR 17, the Singapore High Court considered the interpretation of a mediation-arbitration clause and whether a repudiatory breach by one party of such a clause rendered  the arbitration agreement within that clause inoperative. 

Authors: Kohe Hasan Rachel Loke (Associate, Resource Law LLC)

Type: Client Alerts

* Kohe Hasan is a Partner in Reed Smith's Singapore office and a Director of Resource Law LLC. Rachel Loke is an Associate in Resource Law LLC.

Background

Sections 6(1) and (2) of the International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A) (IAA) provide that:

"(1) Notwithstanding Article 8 of the Model Law, where any party to an arbitration agreement to which this Act applies institutes any proceedings in any court against any other party to the agreement in respect of any matter which is the subject of the agreement, any party to the agreement may, at any time after appearance and before delivering any pleading or taking any other step in the proceedings, apply to that court to stay the proceedings so far as the proceedings relate to that matter.

(2) The court to which an application has been made in accordance with subsection (1) shall make an order, upon such terms or conditions as it may think fit, staying the proceedings so far as the proceedings relate to the matter, unless it is satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed."