Equinox Offshore v Richshore: Pre-Arbitral Discovery & Arbitration Agreement

In Equinox Offshore Accommodation Ltd v Richshore Marine Supplies Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed whether a party to an arbitration agreement could obtain pre-arbitral discovery. Equinox sought discovery from Richshore, alleging overcharging under their agreement. The court, presided over by Teo Guan Siew AR, dismissed Equinox's application, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to order pre-arbitral discovery. The court also granted Richshore's application to stay in favour of arbitration the aspect of the originating summons which sought to enforce the contractual right of inspection.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's discovery application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses if a party to an arbitration agreement can obtain pre-arbitral discovery. Court dismissed the application, holding it lacked jurisdiction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Equinox Offshore Accommodation LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLostFrancis Goh
Richshore Marine Supplies Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication to Stay Granted, Application to Dismiss GrantedWon, WonValerie Ang

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Teo Guan SiewAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Francis GohHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Valerie AngStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. Equinox and Richshore entered into an agreement where Richshore was Equinox's exclusive agent in Singapore for purchasing goods.
  2. Richshore was entitled to payment based on a 12 percent mark-up on the price of goods purchased for Equinox.
  3. The agreement contained an arbitration clause for disputes arising from the agreement.
  4. Equinox sought discovery of Richshore's accounts and records, believing Richshore had overcharged them.
  5. Equinox sought to enforce its contractual right to inspect the documents.
  6. Richshore sought to stay the originating summons proceedings in favor of arbitration.
  7. The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to such inspection under the terms of the Agreement as the plaintiff had already made payment and accepted the goods as purchased by the defendant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Equinox Offshore Accommodation Ltd v Richshore Marine Supplies Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 1419 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 122

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Start date for discovery of accounts and records sought by the plaintiff.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Pre-Arbitral Discovery
    • Outcome: The court held that it does not have the power to order pre-arbitral discovery, whether under O 24 r 6(1) or pursuant to its inherent jurisdiction.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Jurisdiction of the court to order pre-arbitral discovery
      • Interpretation of O 24 r 6(1) of the Rules of Court
      • Court's inherent jurisdiction to order discovery in aid of anticipated arbitration proceedings
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 1 SLR 25
      • [2005] SGCA 26
  2. Stay of Court Proceedings in Favor of Arbitration
    • Outcome: The court granted the defendant's application to stay in favor of arbitration the aspect of the originating summons which sought to enforce the contractual right of inspection.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Applicability of section 6 of the International Arbitration Act
      • Scope of the arbitration clause in the agreement
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 1 SLR 25

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Discovery of documents
  2. Inspection of accounts and records

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Arbitration
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Offshore Accommodation
  • Marine Supplies

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Navigator Investments Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 25SingaporeCited for the principle that an application for pre-action discovery does not fall within the scope of section 6 of the International Arbitration Act.
Woh Hup (Pte) Ltd v Lian Teck Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] SGCA 26SingaporeCited to clarify the terms 'pre-action discovery' and 'pre-arbitral discovery' and to highlight concerns about potential abuse of pre-action discovery in the context of arbitration agreements.
Wee Soon Kim v Law Society of SingaporeCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 821SingaporeCited regarding the invocation of the court’s inherent jurisdiction under Order 92 rule 4 and the need to demonstrate a 'need' of sufficient gravity for the court to exercise such powers.
Bayerische Hypo- und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 39SingaporeCited for the principle that pre-action discovery should not be ordered unless the applicant is unable to plead a case without it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 24 r 6(1)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed), O 12 r 9Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Pre-arbitral discovery
  • Arbitration agreement
  • Discovery application
  • Stay of proceedings
  • International Arbitration Act
  • Rules of Court
  • Originating summons
  • Overcharging
  • Contractual right of inspection

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • discovery
  • pre-arbitral discovery
  • stay of proceedings
  • contract
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Discovery

17. Areas of Law

  • Arbitration Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Discovery