Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers: Arbitration Stay & Pre-Action Discovery
Navigator Investment Services Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision to refuse a stay of Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd's application for pre-action discovery and interrogatories. The Court of Appeal held that the International Arbitration Act (IAA) applied due to the arbitration clause referencing the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules. However, the court dismissed the stay application because a substantive claim had not yet crystallized, emphasizing the need to balance the promotion of arbitration with ensuring access to justice. The court allowed the appeal against the decision in Summons 5059 but dismissed the appeal against the decision in Registrar’s Appeal 383.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal against the decision in Summons 5059 allowed, but appeal against the decision in Registrar’s Appeal 383 dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding stay of pre-action discovery. Court held IAA applies; stay denied as substantive claim not crystallized, balancing arbitration & justice.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal against the decision in Summons 5059 lost | Partial | |
| Navigator Investment Services Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal against the decision in Summons 5059 allowed | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Navigator and Acclaim entered into a Distributorship Agreement in 2004.
- The Distributorship Agreement contained an arbitration clause referencing SIAC rules.
- Acclaim sought pre-action discovery from Navigator regarding the transfer of funds.
- Navigator applied for a stay of the pre-action discovery application in favor of arbitration.
- The High Court refused to grant the stay.
- The arbitration clause stated that any arbitration would be resolved in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the SIAC for the time being in force.
- Acclaim filed Originating Summons No 1830 of 2007 to seek pre-action discovery of certain documents as well as pre-action interrogatories of certain information from Navigator.
5. Formal Citations
- Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd, CA 5/2009, [2009] SGCA 45
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Distributorship Agreement signed between Navigator and Acclaim. | |
| Acclaim entered into a Financial Adviser Manager Agreement with Edward Wong Leong Wei. | |
| Wong and his FARs went on a staff retreat to Phuket, Thailand. | |
| Wong allegedly instructed his FARs to sign pre-prepared letters of resignation backdated to 2007-06-14. | |
| $26 million worth of Funds Under Administration transferred from Acclaim’s account with Navigator to Leadenhall. | |
| Wong’s services with Acclaim were terminated. | |
| Wong forwarded the resignation letters of the FARs to Acclaim and demanded unpaid commissions. | |
| Wong and Stralos commenced Suit No 781 of 2007 against Acclaim. | |
| Acclaim filed Originating Summons No 1830 of 2007 to seek pre-action discovery from Navigator. | |
| Acclaim filed its Defence and Counterclaim in Suit 781. | |
| Navigator commenced Originating Summons No 53 of 2008 against Acclaim. | |
| Navigator filed Summons No 130 of 2008 to stay OS 1830 in favour of arbitration. | |
| Navigator filed Summons No 148 of 2008 to restrain Acclaim from commencing any action. | |
| Summons 148 was heard; court ordered sealing of court files. | |
| OS 53 was heard; interim order and undertakings ordered to stand until disposal of OS 1830. | |
| Navigator commenced Arbitration No 21 of 2008 at the SIAC. | |
| Assistant registrar dismissed SUM 130. | |
| Navigator filed Summons No 5059 of 2008 to amend SUM 130 to seek a stay of OS 1830 under s 6 of the IAA. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that the IAA was applicable but dismissed the stay application because a substantive claim had not yet crystallized.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicability of Arbitration Act versus International Arbitration Act
- Interpretation of 'appearance' in Section 6 of the IAA
- Pre-Action Discovery
- Outcome: The court held that applications for pre-action discovery and/or pre-action interrogatories ought to be available to a party notwithstanding the provisions of s 6 of the IAA.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Availability of pre-action discovery in the context of an arbitration agreement
- Balancing the need for discovery with the policy of promoting arbitration
- Applicability of International Arbitration Act
- Outcome: The court held that the parties had agreed that the IAA was to apply.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of arbitration clause referencing SIAC rules
- Whether adoption of SIAC rules constitutes agreement to apply IAA
8. Remedies Sought
- Stay of proceedings
- Pre-action discovery of documents
- Pre-action interrogatories
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Conspiracy to injure
- Breach of fiduciary duties
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd v Navigator Investment Services Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 12 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal; the Court of Appeal is reviewing the High Court's decision to refuse a stay of pre-action discovery. |
| Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has discretion to admit documents for the purposes of an appeal when no trial or hearing on the merits has taken place. |
| NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 565 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties can expressly opt to have the IAA apply by adopting institutional rules which expressly stipulate that the IAA shall apply, such as Rule 32 of the SIAC Rules 2007. |
| Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd v Covec (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 229 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an agreement for the application of the IAA as the law of the arbitration through the adoption of the SIAC Rules 2007 is sufficient to make s 5(1) of the IAA operative. |
| Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd v Jurong Engineering Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 19 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the rules for the time being are applicable where the contract provides that disputes are to be decided in accordance with the rules of a particular tribunal. |
| Carona Holdings Pte Ltd v Go Go Delicacy Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR 460 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case considering whether it is too late for an applicant to apply for a stay pursuant to s 6 of the IAA because it has taken a step in the proceedings. |
| Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd v Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 26 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has the power to grant an application for pre-action discovery, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent concerned was a party to an arbitration agreement, but that such power should be exercised cautiously to prevent abuse of process. |
| Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Yuval Insurance Co Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 357 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that courts welcome arbitrations in commercial disputes and do not lightly interfere with their awards. |
| Tjong Very Sumito v Antig Investments Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] SGCA 41 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an unequivocal judicial policy of facilitating and promoting arbitration has firmly taken root in Singapore. |
| Lian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR 266 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the court does not have the power, under s 18 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, read together with para 12 of the First Schedule thereof, to grant pre-arbitral discovery. |
| Ali Shipping Corporation v Shipyard Trogir | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 WLR 314 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that one established exception to the duty of confidentiality in arbitration is where it is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of a party to the arbitration. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 425 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that court procedures aim at achieving both procedural as well as substantive justice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| SIAC Rules (3rd Ed, 1 July 2007) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Stay of proceedings
- Pre-action discovery
- International Arbitration Act
- Singapore International Arbitration Centre
- SIAC Rules
- Appearance
- Distributorship Agreement
- Funds Under Administration
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- stay of proceedings
- pre-action discovery
- international arbitration act
- SIAC
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Commercial Law