Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd v Navigator Investment Services Ltd

[1] The plaintiffs in this Originating Summons No 1830 of 2007 are vendors of financial products and had entered into a contract with the defendants to promote and distribute financial products offered by the defendants. On 14 December 2007 one Edward Wong and a company called Stralos Services Pte Ltd sued the plaintiffs in an action commenced by them in Suit 781 of 2007. That action was for unpaid commissions due to them. The plaintiffs here filed the present Originating Summons on 17 December 2007 seeking pre-action discovery against the defendants on the grounds that Edward Wong and Stralos Services conspired with others including the defendants. This Originating Summons was scheduled to be heard on 14 January 2008. The plaintiffs had in the meantime filed their defence to the Edward Wong suit on 9 January 2008 asserting their conspiracy claim. A few days prior to the scheduled hearing, that is, on 11 January 2008 the defendants filed an urgent summons (Summons No 130 of 2008) praying that this Originating Summons be stayed because there was an arbitration clause in the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. That summons was fixed to be heard together with this Originating Summons and a Pre-trial conference scheduled for them was fixed to be heard on 6 February 2008. That was adjourned to 19 February 2008, and then to 11 March 2008. After a couple more pre-trial hearings, the defendants’ Summons No 130 of 2008 was scheduled to be heard on 6 May 2008. The Assistant registrar reserved judgment. The plaintiffs and the defendants then attempted to negotiate a settlement and the judgment was thus held in abeyance. The negotiations failed and the assistant registrar had in the meantime left the registry. The matter was heard again on 28 August 2008 and the defendants succeeded in adjourning the hearing to 25 September 2008, and again to 25 September 2008 when it was finally heard and dismissed. The defendants thus appealed against that order which was the appeal now before me. The appeal first came up for hearing on 23 October 2008. Counsel requested for a special date as the matter was complicated. It was then adjourned to a special date, that is, 6 November 2008. On 6 November 2008 I gave directions for the filing of written submissions and reply submissions to be completed by 5 December 2008.

[3] Another important action took place in the interim. The defendants applied on 18 November 2008 (after my directions on the filing of submissions on the appeal) to amend their summons in Summons 130 of 2008 seeking to stay the proceedings in Originating Summons No 1830 of 2007 on the ground that the arbitration before Mr Khoo was an international arbitration under the International Arbitration Act, Cap 143A by which a stay of proceedings would be mandatory; whereas an arbitration under the Arbitration Act (Cap. 10) the court has a discretion not to order a stay. I will deal first with the late application to amend the summons. I need only point out that the arbitration concerned parties in Singapore on matters governed by Singapore law, and Singapore was the forum of the arbitration. In short, there was nothing to indicate why this matter comes under the International Arbitration Act, which applies when, inter alia, both parties consent to having their arbitration under it. The plaintiffs clearly did not. The defendants commenced the arbitration ostensibly under the Arbitration Act, and had taken an inordinately long time to claim that it was an international arbitration, a point that could have but was not made before either assistant registrars in previous hearings. The onus was a very high one on the defendants in these circumstances to show that this was an international arbitration. In view of the paucity of evidence and argument, I will not allow the amendment sought and dismiss that application accordingly.