WSG Nimbus v Board of Control for Cricket: International Arbitration, Anti-Suit Injunction, and Issue Estoppel
In a dispute between WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd and the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, the Singapore High Court addressed issues of international arbitration, anti-suit injunctions, and issue estoppel. WSG Nimbus sought to prevent the Board from proceeding with an action in Sri Lanka and dealing with third parties. The court dismissed the application to set aside the anti-suit injunction but discharged the prohibitive injunction, finding damages an adequate remedy for WSG Nimbus but not for the Board. The court found that an arbitration agreement existed and it had jurisdiction to grant the anti-suit injunction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's application to set aside the anti-suit injunction is dismissed; the prohibitive injunction is discharged.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses an anti-suit injunction in an international arbitration dispute between WSG Nimbus and the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to set aside anti-suit injunction dismissed, Prohibitive injunction discharged | Partial, Lost | VK Rajah, Aurill Kam |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka | Defendant | Association | Application to set aside anti-suit injunction dismissed, Prohibitive injunction discharged | Lost, Won | Vinodh Coomaraswamy, Pradeep Pillai |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| VK Rajah | Rajah & Tann |
| Aurill Kam | Rajah & Tann |
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Shook Lin & Bok |
| Pradeep Pillai | Shook Lin & Bok |
4. Facts
- WSG Nimbus and Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka entered into a Master Rights Agreement (MRA) on 3 December 2000.
- The MRA granted WSG Nimbus commercial rights to cricket matches between the Sri Lankan national team and visiting sides.
- Clause 19 of the MRA provided for English law to govern the agreement and for arbitration in Singapore.
- Disputes arose between the parties regarding payments under the MRA.
- The Board commenced proceedings against WSG Nimbus in the Colombo High Court.
- WSG Nimbus filed a motion in the Colombo High Court objecting to its jurisdiction.
- WSG Nimbus issued a Notice of Arbitration to the Board pursuant to Clause 19 of the MRA.
5. Formal Citations
- WSG Nimbus Pte Ltd v Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka, OS 601627/2001, SIC 600107/2002, [2002] SGHC 104
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Master Rights Agreement entered into by WSG Nimbus and Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka | |
| Master Rights Agreement covers cricket matches from January 2001 to December 2003 | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka commenced proceedings against WSG Nimbus in the Colombo High Court | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka obtained an interim injunction against WSG Nimbus | |
| WSG Nimbus filed a motion to dismiss the First Action | |
| Parties arrived at a settlement of the First Action and executed a document entitled "Terms of Settlement" | |
| WSG Nimbus consented to judgment and decree being entered in terms of the Terms of Settlement | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka gave notice to WSG Nimbus that the Master Rights Agreement had ceased to operate | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka took out a second action against WSG Nimbus in the Colombo High Court | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka obtained an interim injunction against WSG Nimbus | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka called for expressions of interest for the sale of commercial rights | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka placed a press advertisement giving notice that WSG Nimbus had failed to perform their obligations | |
| WSG Nimbus took out a motion in the Colombo High Court to raise objection to it exercising jurisdiction | |
| WSG Nimbus issued a Notice of Arbitration to the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka | |
| WSG Nimbus notified the SIAC of the reference to arbitration | |
| WSG Nimbus notified the Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka of their intention to commence proceedings in Singapore | |
| WSG Nimbus commenced proceedings in Singapore | |
| Hearing of the WSG Nimbus motion in the Colombo High Court | |
| Singapore High Court made interim orders on WSG Nimbus' ex parte application | |
| Hearing of the WSG Nimbus motion in the Colombo High Court | |
| Parties filed written submissions in the Colombo High Court | |
| Colombo High Court dismissed the motion | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka appointed their arbitrator | |
| WSG Nimbus lodged a petition in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka for leave to appeal against the Order of Court dated 7 November | |
| Appeal court dismissed WSG Nimbus' petition | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka took out summons to discharge injunctions | |
| Board of Control for Cricket in Sri Lanka withdrew some grounds for application to discharge injunctions | |
| Decision Date | |
| Tribunal fixed preliminary question for hearing |
7. Legal Issues
- Existence of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that Clause 19 of the Master Rights Agreement is an arbitration agreement within the meaning of the International Arbitration Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of arbitration clause
- Option to arbitrate vs. mandatory arbitration
- Jurisdiction of the Court
- Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiffs had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Colombo High Court and that issue estoppel did not apply.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Submission to foreign court's jurisdiction
- Issue estoppel arising from foreign court judgment
- Granting of Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that it had jurisdiction to grant the anti-suit injunction and that it should be continued until further order.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether the anti-suit injunction falls within s 12(6) of the Act read with s 12(1)(g)
- Discretion to grant anti-suit injunction
- Granting of Prohibitive Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that damages were an adequate remedy for the Plaintiffs but not for the Defendants, and discharged the prohibitive injunction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Whether damages are an adequate remedy
- Balance of convenience
- Urgency of Application
- Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiffs' application was sufficiently urgent and fell within the ambit of O 69A r 3(3).
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Ex parte application
- Requirement of urgency
8. Remedies Sought
- Interim injunction against the Board acting contrary to the MRA and the Terms of Settlement
- Declaration that the MRA and Terms of Settlement continue to be in full force and effect
- Order of specific performance of the MRA and Terms of Settlement
- Damages, interest and costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Arbitration Agreement
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- International Dispute Resolution
11. Industries
- Sports
- Media
- Entertainment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wesfal Larsen & Co A/S v Ikerigi Compania Naviera SA (The Messiniaki Bergen) | English High Court | Yes | [1983] 1 All ER 382 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a clause conferring an option to arbitrate becomes a binding arbitration agreement once a party elects to arbitrate. |
| Lobb Partnership Ltd v Aintree Racecourse Company Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [2000] BLR 65 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that courts will treat parties as bound to refer disputes to arbitration if the contract gives a reasonably clear indication that arbitration is envisaged, even if the clause is not expressed in mandatory terms. |
| Hammond v Wolt | High Court of Victoria | Yes | [1975] VR 108 | Australia | Cited as an example of a case where a clause giving parties an option to elect for arbitration was not considered an agreement to submit differences to arbitration; however, this view was rejected in a later case. |
| Manningham City Council v Dura Constructions (Australia) Pty Ltd | Victorian Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] VSCA 158 | Australia | Cited for rejecting the view in Hammond v. Wolt and holding that a contract may contain an arbitration agreement even if the reference of a particular dispute to arbitration depends on the exercise of an option. |
| The Sennar (No. 2) | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] 1 Lloyds Rep 521 | United Kingdom | Cited for summarizing the conditions to raise an estoppel per rem judicatam. |
| Official Assignee of the estate of Tang Hsiu Lan, a bankrupt v Pua Ai Seok & Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 436 | Singapore | Cited for approving and following The Sennar (No. 2) on the conditions to raise an estoppel per rem judicatam. |
| Williams & Glyns Bank plc v Astro Dinamica Compania Naviera S.A. | House of Lords | Yes | [1984] 1 WLR 438 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that there are two different and distinct jurisdictions: jurisdiction over the merits of the claim and jurisdiction to determine whether the court has jurisdiction over the merits; distinguished on the facts. |
| Harris v Taylor | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1915] 2 KB 580 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a defendant who enters a conditional appearance in a foreign court to set aside proceedings on jurisdictional grounds has submitted to the jurisdiction of that court; distinguished on the facts. |
| Henry v Geoprosco International Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1976] 1 QB 726 | England and Wales | Cited for considering Harris v Taylor and clarifying the circumstances under which a defendant's appearance in a foreign court constitutes a voluntary submission to that court's jurisdiction; distinguished on the facts. |
| Re Dulles Settlement (No 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1951] Ch 842 | England and Wales | Cited for Denning LJ's comment on voluntary submission to jurisdiction, questioning how a person can be said to have voluntarily submitted when they have been vigorously protesting the court's jurisdiction. |
| Daarnhouwer & Co NV v Boulous | Unknown | Yes | [1968] 2 Lloyds Rep 259 | Unknown | Cited as a decision where English Courts refused to apply the rule in Harris v Taylor. |
| Philip Alexander Securities & Futures Ltd v Bamberger & Ors | English Court of Appeal | Yes | CA (Civil Division) Transcript, 12 July 1996 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that judgments obtained abroad in breach of an injunction granted by the English Court should not be recognised in the United Kingdom as a matter of public policy. |
| Sokana v Freyre & Co | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 Lloyds Rep 57 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that the power to make interlocutory orders only applies in respect of an existing or pending reference to arbitration; distinguished on the facts. |
| The Rena K | Unknown | Yes | [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 545; [1979] 1 Q.B. 377 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that Mareva injunctions can be granted in aid of execution of an award under the existing reference or under a reference to be commenced analogously with such an injunction ordered in aid of execution of a judgment that may be given in a pending action or in an action which the applicant undertakes to commence. |
| The Siskina | Unknown | Yes | [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; [1979] A.C. 210 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that remedies are essentially remedies whose function is to assist in the just and proper conduct of the reference or preservation of property the subject of the reference. |
| The Tropaioforos (No 2) | Unknown | Yes | [1962] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 410 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that English Courts can, in appropriate cases, restrain by injunction the conduct of proceedings in a foreign Court. |
| Mantovani v. Carapelli S.p.A. | Unknown | Yes | [1980] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 375 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that where a contract contained an arbitration clause referring all relevant disputes to arbitration in England, and the claimant had started an arbitration in England and then commences proceedings in a foreign Court making the same claim as had been advanced in the arbitration, the invocation of the foreign Court's jurisdiction would be a breach of the arbitration agreement in English law. |
| Pena Copper Mines Ltd. v. Rio Tinto Co. Ltd. | Unknown | Yes | [1912] 105 L.T. 846 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that the Court has a discretion whether to grant an order restraining conduct of proceedings in a foreign court. |
| Apple Corps. Ltd. v. Apple Computer Inc. | Unknown | Yes | [1992] R.P.C. 70 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that a direction to restrain conduct of proceedings in a foreign court should be exercised in favor of an injunction only with caution. |
| World Pride Shipping Ltd v Daiichi Chuo Kisen Kaisha ("The Golden Anne") | Unknown | Yes | [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 489 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that the Court should not appear to usurp the function of a foreign court except as a last resort; distinguished on the facts. |
| Tracomin SA v Sudan Oil Seeds Co Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 384 | Unknown | Cited for re-affirming the jurisdiction of the Court to grant an anti-suit injunction. |
| Aratra Potato Co. v. Egyptian Navigation Co. | Unknown | Yes | [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 119 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that enjoining the defendants from pursuing proceedings against the plaintiffs will lead to multiplicity of litigation on the same issues with different parties involved. |
| Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA ("The Angelic Grace") | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep 87 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the English Court need feel no diffidence in granting an injunction to restrain a party from proceeding in a foreign Court in breach of an arbitration agreement governed by English law, provided that it is sought promptly and before the foreign proceedings are too far advanced. |
| Continental Bank N.A. v. Aeakos Compania Naviera S.A. | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 1 W.L.R. 588 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that there is no difference in principle between an injunction to restrain proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause and one to restrain proceedings in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. |
| Beswick v Beswick | House of Lords | Yes | [1967] 2 All ER 1197 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that where damages are nominal or insubstantial, it is all the more appropriate to grant specific relief rather than damages since damages would clearly not be an adequate remedy. |
| Chua Kwok Fun Kevin & Anor v Etons Management Consultants Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 337 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where damages are nominal or insubstantial, it is all the more appropriate to grant specific relief rather than damages since damages would clearly not be an adequate remedy. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 69A r 3(3) Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 1995 Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 1995 Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 1995 Ed) s 12(6) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 1995 Ed) s 12(1)(g) | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act No 11 of 1995 | Sri Lanka |
| Arbitration Act No 11 of 1995 s 5 | Sri Lanka |
| Sri Lankan Sports Law No. 25 of 1973 | Sri Lanka |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Master Rights Agreement
- Arbitration agreement
- Anti-suit injunction
- Prohibitive injunction
- Issue estoppel
- Colombo High Court
- SIAC Rules
- Terms of Settlement
- Governing law
- Jurisdiction
- New York Convention
- Commercial rights
- Interim orders
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- injunction
- international
- dispute
- contract
- jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Sri Lanka
- cricket
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Injunctions
- Jurisdiction
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- International Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Courts and Jurisdiction
- Contract Law
- Injunctions
- Conflict of Laws
- Sports Law