Singapore Court Holds Mandatory Arbitration Agreement In Company Constitution Operative Despite Earlier Litigation

Singapore High Court holds mandatory arbitration agreement in company constitution operative despite earlier litigation

Herbert Smith Freehills review the 2017 decision of the Singapore High Court in BMO v BMP [2017] SGHC 127, where the Court clarified a number of issues concerning the content, scope and operability of arbitration agreements.  The authors note that of particular importance is the Singapore Court’s view on the extent to which a party’s choice to subject a dispute, which may otherwise be the subject of an arbitration agreement, to litigation may act as a bar to that party subsequently choosing to refer the dispute to arbitration as a result of the doctrines of waiver or promissory estoppel.

The decision is of particular importance as it provides a detailed analysis of a range of important legal issues including the trend of the Singapore Court preferring to adopt the position in SulAmerica in relation to the applicable choice of governing law and the broad interpretation of arbitration agreements so as to give maximum effect to the parties’ decision to arbitrate and the determination of the


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Your email address will not be published.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 *