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
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.