Bare Arbitration Clauses And Extent Which Singapore Court May Assist

‘Bare’ arbitration clauses and the extent to which the Singapore court may assist

Herbert Smith Freehills review the Singapore High Court’s 2017 decision in K.V.C Rice Intertrade Co Ltd v Asian Mineral Resources Pte Ltd and another Suit [2017] SGHC 32, where the Court discussed the extent to which the Singapore courts and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, in its capacity as default appointing authority under the Singapore International Arbitration Act are able to support and facilitate an arbitration commenced pursuant to a bare arbitration clause which specifies neither the place of arbitration nor the manner in which arbitrators are to be appointed. The authors note that this decision underscores the need to ensure that arbitration clauses are drafted with care, and clearly set out the parties’ intentions in the event of an arbitration to ensure that parties avoid unnecessary and time-consuming disputes about the intent, ambit and application of an arbitration clause, and focus instead on resolving their dispute through arbitration quickly and effectively.


About Phillip Rompotis

Phillip practices as a barrister and arbitrator in Hong Kong. He has over 25 years’ litigation and arbitration experience in commercial disputes relating to construction & engineering, financial services, joint venture & shareholders agreements, technology, trusts, property and landlord & tenant. He is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators, the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators, the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators, and a member of various lists/panels of arbitrators.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *