CJD v CJE and CJF: Dispute over Joinder of Third Parties in Arbitration under LCIA Rules
In CJD v CJE and CJF, the Singapore High Court addressed an originating summons filed by CJD, the plaintiff, against CJE and CJF, the defendants, concerning the decision of an arbitral tribunal to reject CJD's application to join CJF as a party to an arbitration. The arbitration arose from a joint venture agreement. The High Court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner S Mohan, dismissed the originating summons, upholding the tribunal's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to force the joinder of CJF to the arbitration, as CJF had not provided written consent as required by Article 22.1(viii) of the London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2014.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on whether an arbitral tribunal erred in declining to join a third party to arbitration. The court dismissed the originating summons.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement to develop a mixed-use complex in Narnia.
- The Joint Venture Agreement contained an arbitration clause referring disputes to the LCIA Rules.
- Disputes arose, and the 1st defendant commenced arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff sought to join the 2nd defendant to the arbitration.
- The arbitral tribunal rejected the joinder application, stating it lacked jurisdiction.
- The 2nd defendant did not provide written consent to be joined to the arbitration.
- The plaintiff applied to the High Court to reverse the tribunal's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- CJD v CJE and another, , [2021] SGHC 61
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff entered into a joint venture agreement with the 1st defendant, 2nd defendant and three other parties. | |
| The 1st defendant applied to the courts in Narnia for an injunction against the Joint Venture Company’s escrow agent. | |
| The plaintiff commenced proceedings in Narnia’s courts to seek the dissolution of the Joint Venture Company. | |
| The 1st defendant obtained an anti-suit injunction from the Singapore High Court. | |
| The 1st defendant commenced arbitration proceedings in Singapore against the plaintiff. | |
| The plaintiff filed three applications in the Arbitration. | |
| Tribunal issued its partial award on jurisdiction and preliminary applications. | |
| The Tribunal issued its decision rejecting the Joinder Application. | |
| The plaintiff received the Decision via email. | |
| The plaintiff filed OS 1446. | |
| The defendants filed an application in Summons No 1075 of 2020 for all proceedings related to OS 1446 to be heard in chambers. | |
| The parties were heard on both SUM 1075 and OS 1446. | |
| Oral grounds dismissing OS 1446 were delivered. | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal
- Outcome: The court held that the arbitral tribunal did not err in declining to join the second defendant to the arbitration, as there was no written consent from the second defendant as required by Article 22.1(viii) of the LCIA Rules 2014.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Forced joinder of third parties
- Interpretation of arbitration agreement
- Interpretation of Article 22.1(viii) of the LCIA Rules 2014
- Outcome: The court interpreted Article 22.1(viii) of the LCIA Rules 2014 to require express written consent from the third party to be joined, and that simply being a signatory to the joint venture agreement was insufficient.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirement of written consent for joinder
- Scope of consent within the arbitration agreement
8. Remedies Sought
- Reversal of arbitral tribunal's decision
- Order to join the 2nd defendant to the arbitration
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of party autonomy and consent in the context of forced joinders in arbitration. |
| Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde Maritime Services (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 131 | Singapore | Cited for the approach that an objection or plea on a tribunal’s jurisdiction need not be in any specified form. |
| PT Asuransi Jasa Indonesia (Persero) v Dexia Bank SA | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 597 | Singapore | Cited to define what constitutes an 'award' under the International Arbitration Act, clarifying that a negative determination on jurisdiction is not an award. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Forced joinder
- Party autonomy
- Arbitration agreement
- LCIA Rules 2014
- Article 22.1(viii)
- Written consent
- Double separability
- Jurisdiction of tribunal
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- joinder
- LCIA Rules
- jurisdiction
- Singapore
- contract
- consent
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Arbitration | 95 |
| International Arbitration | 85 |
| Joinder of Parties | 80 |
| Party Autonomy | 75 |
| Jurisdiction | 70 |
| Double Separability | 65 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Commercial Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure