BXY v BXX: Dispute Over Tribunal Jurisdiction in SIAC Arbitration
BXY, BYA, and BYB (Plaintiffs) sought to reverse a tribunal's ruling that BXX, BXZ, and BYC (Defendants) were proper parties to an arbitration. The Singapore International Commercial Court, presided over by Roger Giles IJ, dismissed the application, holding that the tribunal had jurisdiction and that the application was filed out of time. The dispute arose from an alleged assignment of rights under a share sale agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Arbitration
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction in an arbitration. The court dismissed the application, affirming the tribunal's jurisdiction and finding the application untimely.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BXY | Plaintiff, Respondent | Other | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| BYA | Plaintiff, Respondent | Other | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| BYB | Plaintiff, Respondent | Other | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| BXX | Defendant, Claimant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won | |
| BXZ | Defendant, Claimant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won | |
| BYC | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Roger Giles | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs are respondents in an arbitration.
- The plaintiffs applied to the Tribunal for an order that the first defendant be struck out as a party.
- The Tribunal dismissed the application.
- The plaintiffs sought to reverse the Tribunal's ruling.
- The first defendant is an Australian company.
- The second defendant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the first defendant.
- The share sale agreement contained a choice of law clause in favor of the laws of Singapore and an arbitration clause.
5. Formal Citations
- BXY and others v BXX and others, Originating Summons No 3 of 2019, [2019] SGHC(I) 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Agreement preceding the share sale agreement was dated. | |
| Supplementary agreement was dated. | |
| Deed giving effect to the share sale agreement as a restated share sale agreement was dated. | |
| First defendant provided a letter of designation. | |
| Completion of share transfer took place. | |
| First and second defendants commenced arbitration proceedings. | |
| Plaintiffs applied to the Tribunal to strike out the first defendant as a party to the Arbitration. | |
| Defendants provided responsive submissions to the Tribunal. | |
| Plaintiffs provided reply submissions to the Tribunal. | |
| Tribunal issued its decision as Directions (2), dismissing the application. | |
| Plaintiffs emailed the Tribunal concerning preliminary issues. | |
| Plaintiffs applied to the High Court by an Originating Summons. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the first defendant's claims.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Assignment of rights under a contract
- Timeliness of jurisdictional challenge
- Related Cases:
- [2017] 3 SLR 357
- [2019] SGHC 142
- Timeliness of Application
- Outcome: The court held that the application was not brought within the prescribed time and declined to extend the time.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Receipt of notice of tribunal's ruling
- Extension of time for application
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 1 SLR 636
- [2019] SGCA 33
- [2014] 1 SLR 372
- [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546
- (2011) 257 FLR 75
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 540
- [2019] SGHC (I) 10
8. Remedies Sought
- Reversal of the Tribunal’s ruling
- Declaration that the Originating Summons had been filed within the prescribed time
- Extension of time to file the Originating Summons
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCY v BCZ | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should decide the application de novo. |
| BNA v BNB and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 142 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should decide the application de novo. |
| Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others | Singapore High Court | No | [2013] 1 SLR 636 | Singapore | Cited regarding the inherent power of the court to prevent injustice. |
| Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | No | [2019] SGCA 33 | Singapore | Cited regarding the ability to rely on lack of jurisdiction in setting aside proceedings after the final award. |
| PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | No | [2014] 1 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited regarding a less stringent approach to expedition and finality through the 30-day time limit. |
| ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd | Singapore High Court | No | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 546 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's inability to entertain applications lodged after the expiry of the three-month period. |
| teleMates Pty Ltd v Standard SoftTel Solutions Pvt Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (2011) 257 FLR 75 | Australia | Cited regarding the scheme established by the Model Law making no provision for the period in Article 16(3) to be extended. |
| Obegi Melissa and others v Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | No | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 540 | Singapore | Cited regarding the question of substance: whether the Article extinguished a right of action rather than imposing a deadline for taking a procedural step. |
| BXS v BXT | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC (I) 10 | Singapore | Cited regarding the power to extend time in cl 7 in Schedule 1 to the SCJA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre |
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 |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration
- Jurisdiction
- Assignment
- Share Sale Agreement
- Tribunal
- Letter of Designation
- Originating Summons
- International Arbitration Act
- UNCITRAL Model Law
- Directions (2)
15.2 Keywords
- Arbitration
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore International Commercial Court
- International Arbitration Act
- Share Sale Agreement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 95 |
| International Arbitration | 90 |
| International Commercial Law | 85 |
| Jurisdiction | 80 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Assignment Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Jurisdiction
- Contract Law