BBW v BBX: Sealing Order & In Camera Hearing for Arbitration-Related Suit
In BBW v BBX, BBY, and BBZ, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the plaintiff, BBW, for a sealing order and an in camera hearing concerning a suit related to an arbitration. BBW sought a declaration that there was a valid indemnity agreement between him and a deceased party, B, and for enforcement of the Indemnity Agreement against the first defendant, BBX, who is the personal representative of B’s estate. The court granted the applications, citing its inherent power and s 8(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, finding it expedient in the interests of justice to preserve the confidentiality of the related arbitration.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications granted.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
BBW sought a sealing order and in camera hearing for a suit related to an arbitration. The court granted the applications based on inherent power and SCJA.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Han Guangyuan Keith | Cavenagh Law LLP |
| Tan Tian Yi | Cavenagh Law LLP |
4. Facts
- BBW sought a sealing order and in camera hearing for a suit related to an arbitration.
- The suit concerns the enforcement of an indemnity agreement between BBW and a deceased party, B.
- BBW claims that B agreed to indemnify him against liability in an arbitration at the SIAC.
- The arbitration involves a claim by C against BBW regarding the purchase of shares.
- BBW argues the shares were beneficially owned by B, who was C's father-in-law.
- BBW intended to rely on facts and documents from the arbitration for the suit.
- BBX, BBY, and BBZ were not parties to the arbitration.
5. Formal Citations
- BBW v BBX and others, Suit No 689 of 2016 (Summons No 3539 of 2016), [2016] SGHC 190
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment date | |
| Lawsuit filed |
7. Legal Issues
- Sealing Order
- Outcome: The court granted the sealing order based on its inherent power, balancing the principle of open justice with the need to preserve confidentiality in arbitration.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Confidentiality of arbitration
- Open justice
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 3 SLR 794
- In Camera Hearing
- Outcome: The court granted the in camera hearing application pursuant to s 8(2) of the SCJA, finding it expedient in the interests of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interests of justice
- Public policy
- Interpretation of International Arbitration Act
- Outcome: The court held that sections 22 and 23 of the IAA were inapplicable as the Suit was not a proceeding under the IAA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of proceedings under the Act
- Application of sections 22 and 23
8. Remedies Sought
- Sealing Order
- In Camera Hearing
- Declaration of valid indemnity agreement
- Enforcement of Indemnity Agreement
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Enforcement of Indemnity Agreement
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZT and others v AZV | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 794 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the court has the power to grant a sealing order to preserve the confidentiality of arbitration proceedings. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the distinction between the jurisdiction of a court and the powers of a court. |
| Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 25 | Singapore | Cited to affirm that procedures are in place for the sealing of court files. |
| Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah and other applications | N/A | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 348 | N/A | Cited in Nalpon to define the jurisdiction of a court and the powers of a court. |
| The Attorney General of Nova Scotia and Ernest Harold Grainger v Linden MacIntyre | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1982] 1 SCR 175 | Canada | Cited for the principle that every court has supervisory power over its own records and can deny access when the ends of justice would be subverted by disclosure. |
| Tan Chi Min v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 529 | Singapore | Cited to show that the question of leave in O 60 r 4(2) of the ROC is independent from the existence or otherwise of a sealing order. |
| AAY v AAZ | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1093 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate the underlying general principle in Singapore’s arbitration law that arbitrations are not only private but also confidential. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (Cap 189, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Sealing order
- In camera hearing
- International Arbitration Act
- Indemnity agreement
- Arbitration
- Confidentiality
- Open justice
- Inherent power
- Proceedings under the Act
15.2 Keywords
- sealing order
- in camera
- arbitration
- confidentiality
- inherent power
- international arbitration act
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration
- Confidentiality
- Sealing Orders
- In Camera Hearings