BAF v BAG: Stay of Court Proceedings and Terms for Grant of Stay in Arbitration

In BAF v BAG, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by the second defendant, BAG, for a stay of court proceedings pending arbitration under the International Arbitration Act. The plaintiff, BAF, agreed to the stay but requested to serve interrogatories. The court granted the stay, subject to the condition that BAF could serve interrogatories on BAG, to be answered by the first defendant on BAG's behalf. BAG appealed the imposition of this condition. The court dismissed the appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application for stay of proceedings granted subject to condition that plaintiff could serve interrogatories.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on stay of proceedings pending arbitration. The court granted the stay but imposed a condition for interrogatories.

1.7 Decision Date

6 November 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
BAF	Plaintiff	Corporation	Conditional Stay Granted	Partial	Hri Kumar Nair, Shivani d/o Sivasagthy Retnam, Hasharan Kaur, Teo Wei Ling
BAG	Defendant	Corporation	Stay Granted with Condition	Partial	Kronenburg Edmund Jerome, Zheng Huirong Lynette Ann, Tan Tien Wen
BAH	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
BAI	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Hri Kumar Nair	Drew & Napier LLC
Shivani d/o Sivasagthy Retnam	Drew & Napier LLC
Hasharan Kaur	Drew & Napier LLC
Teo Wei Ling	Drew & Napier LLC
Kronenburg Edmund Jerome	Braddell Brothers LLP
Zheng Huirong Lynette Ann	Braddell Brothers LLP
Tan Tien Wen	Braddell Brothers LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff and D1 entered into a Master Agreement for a joint venture to develop D2's mining concession.
Plaintiff was to provide US$30m for commencement of mining works.
D2 acknowledged being bound by the Master Agreement.
Plaintiff remitted US$20m and US$10m to D3's Singapore Account.
Plaintiff claimed D1 and TN entered into a Supplementary Agreement.
D2 confirmed the Monies had been received and would be used in accordance with the Master Agreement.
D2 applied for a stay of proceedings pending the SIAC Arbitration.

5. Formal Citations

BAF v BAG and others, Suit No 1158 of 2015(Summons No 1812 of 2016), [2016] SGHC 251

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-04-14	Master Agreement signed
2011-04-15	D2 acknowledged being bound by the Master Agreement
2011-04-17	D1 gave instructions for payment of US$30m
2011-04-19	Plaintiff remitted US$20m to D3's Singapore Account
2011-05-03	Supplementary Agreement signed
2011-05-05	Plaintiff remitted US$10m to D3's Singapore Account
2011-09-14	D2 confirmed receipt of the Monies
2013-02-07	D2 informed plaintiff about policy changes affecting mining concession
2015-08-27	Plaintiff's solicitors requested information and documents
2015-10-16	D1 claimed he had no knowledge of the Supplementary Agreement
2015-10-21	Plaintiff demanded payment of US$30m
2015-10-29	D1 claimed the Supplementary Agreement was not binding
2015-11-17	Writ of summons and statement of claim served on D3
2015-11-20	Plaintiff filed Banker's Book Application
2015-12-07	Assistant Registrar granted the Banker's Book Order
2015-12-12	Banker's Book Order served on D3
2015-12-14	D3 entered appearance
2015-12-18	Braddell Brothers LLP sent a Notice of Arbitration to the plaintiff
2015-12-18	D3 applied for a stay of this suit
2015-12-29	Court granted an order staying the action against D3
2016-01-28	Plaintiff applied for leave to serve interrogatories on D3
2016-04-11	AR granted the application to serve interrogatories on D3
2016-04-11	Plaintiff served the interrogatories on D3
2016-04-18	D2 applied for a stay of proceedings
2016-04-21	D3 filed an appeal against the AR's decision
2016-04-29	D3 was added as a party to the SIAC Arbitration
2016-05-05	Court dismissed D3's appeal
2016-05-31	D3 filed its answers to the interrogatories
2016-06-06	Statement of claim filed in the SIAC Arbitration
2016-06-29	Defendants applied to the arbitral tribunal to restrain the plaintiff from taking further steps
2016-07-04	Court heard D2's application
2016-07-04	Judgment Date
2016-07-29	D2 filed its appeal to the Court of Appeal
2016-08-01	D2 applied for a stay of the Condition pending its appeal
2016-08-03	Plaintiff applied for an order that D1 be required to answer the interrogatories
2016-09-13	Court heard both applications
2016-11-07	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Stay of Court Proceedings
- Outcome: The court granted the stay of proceedings subject to the condition that the plaintiff could serve interrogatories on the second defendant.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 4 SLR(R) 984
  - [1998] SGHC 127
  - [2016] 1 SLR 373
Terms for Grant of Stay
- Outcome: The court imposed a condition on the stay, allowing the plaintiff to serve interrogatories on the second defendant.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 4 SLR(R) 984
  - [1998] SGHC 127

8. Remedies Sought

Recovery of US$30m
Damages
Account of US$30m
Declarations to trace the sum of US$30m

9. Cause of Actions

Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Breach of Trust
Unjust Enrichment
Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Mining

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The “Duden”	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 984	Singapore	Cited for the court's discretion to impose terms and conditions upon a stay in favour of arbitration.
PT Budi Semestra Satria v Concordia Agritrading Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1998] SGHC 127	Singapore	Cited for the court's entitlement to impose terms and conditions as appear reasonable or required by the ties of justice.
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals	Court of Appeal	No	[2016] 1 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that if part of a dispute is sent for arbitration, the court proceedings relating to the rest of the dispute may be stayed where doing so would serve the ends of justice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 6 of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 175 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Stay of proceedings
Interrogatories
Arbitration agreement
Master Agreement
Supplementary Agreement
Mining concession
Commencement Fund
SIAC Arbitration

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
stay of proceedings
interrogatories
international arbitration act
mining
singapore

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Arbitration Law
Civil Procedure