This month, in addition to the usual IA updates from around the globe, we highlight an issue which arises regularly and continues to vex courts around the world – the extent to which third parties/non-signatories may rely on or be bound by an arbitration agreement.
Courts around the world have adopted a range of approaches including incorporation by reference, assumption, agency, veil-piercing/alter-ego and estoppel. The issue is an important one as transactions frequently involve performance by parties that are not actual signatories to the contract in issue, including sureties, sub-contractors, lenders, and third-party beneficiaries.
This post considers Reinhart, a recent Australian High Court decision, and refers to various other judgments from around the world that have considered the impact of non-signatories in arbitration.
Hong Kong / China
England / Europe
United States of America
View Previous Newsletters
We are delighted to report that in the space of only a few months, Arbitrium now boasts a subscriber list of nearly 1,800 specialist international arbitration practitioners from around the globe. Many of these subscribers have also joined the Arbitrium group on LinkedIn. Thank you to all our readers, our contributors and our sponsors for their support.
In addition to the usual IA updates from around the globe, we highlight two cases, a HK CA decision dealing with a stay application in the context of insolvency proceedings, the other from Singapore refusing an extension of time to bring a setting aside application under Article 34 of the Model Law.
This month, a series of cases from Malaysia dealing with injunctions, including to restrain the calling of performance bonds and the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction, as well as a review of the Rakna decision from Singapore, concerning the effects to enforcement of non-participation in the arbitration proceedings.