In a recent ex tempore judgment in the case of Loblaw Companies Limited v Origin & Co Ltd & Another  SGHC 59 ("Loblaw v Origin"), the Singapore High Court declined to exercise its discretion under s10(9) of the International Arbitration Act ("IAA"), and refused to stay an arbitration pending final determination by the Singapore courts of a separate application by Loblaw to review the Tribunal's finding on its jurisdiction.
In its decision the High Court acknowledged the lack of authority on when and how a court shall exercise its discretion under s10(9) of the IAA, finding that "[u]ltimately, very much depends on the unique facts and circumstances of each case". However, an applicant would generally be required to show "special circumstances" justifying a stay, over and above the (alleged) merits of the jurisdictional objection or the obvious risk of wasted time and costs.
On 10 January 2017 the Singapore Parliament passed amendments to the Civil Law Act legalising third-party funding in arbitration and related proceedings in Singapore (the "Amendments"). Following a year of positive developments for arbitration in Singapore, this latest development will open up a significant new market for funders worldwide, further asserts Singapore's eminence as an arbitral centre and paves the way for further and deeper reform.
We previously reported on the introduction of the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill in our blog posts of July 2016 and November 2016. The key features of the Bill were to:
- abolish the common law torts of champerty and maintenance (which currently restrict the use of third party funding);
- confirm that third party funding is not contrary to public policy or illegal, if used by eligible parties in prescribed categories;
- confirm that the prescribed categories of proceedings in which third party funding can be used include international arbitration proceedings and court litigation and mediation arising out of international arbitration; and
- prescribe the qualifications that a third party funder must satisfy in order to fund an arbitration, including a proviso that the funding of dispute resolution proceedings must be the "principal business" of the third party funder.
While the legislation makes the broad legal amendments necessary to facilitate third-party funding, the finer details – such as the precise scope of the permitted arrangements and accompanying regulatory changes – will be dealt with by subsidiary legislation and regulations by the Minister of Law.
Interestingly, early reports of Ministers' comments on the legislation, indicate that the Amendments – currently limited to international arbitration and related proceedings – are very much a first step toward broader reform. Singapore's Senior Minister of State for Law, Ms Indranee Rajah, reportedly stated that "We want to have [third-party funding] tested in a limited sphere … If the framework works well, as and when appropriate, the prescribed categories of proceedings may be expanded". This will be of significant interest to funders and practitioners alike, as it clearly positions Singapore as a growth market.
In the recent case of BCY v BCZ  SGHC 249, the Singapore High Court considered whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement in the context of a negotiated but unsigned contract. The Court comprehensively summarised Singapore's position on determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement, holding that there is a strong presumption that this will be the governing law of the main contract unless this would negate the arbitration agreement. The judgment provides clarity for clients negotiating contracts which provide for disputes to be resolved by Singapore seated arbitration.