Publication
Government Investigations in Singapore 2025
We have contributed the Singapore chapter of Getting the Deal Through, Government Investigations 2025.
Global | Publication | July 2024
The case involved ongoing proceedings in the Malaysian High Court and arbitration under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA). An application for an anti-anti-arbitration injunction was subsequently made before the English Commercial Court. This case highlights the discretion applied by the English Court in deciding whether to grant injunctions of this nature as well as the role of comity and delay in the English Court’s decision.
The case before the English Commercial Court involved a complex dispute arising from the sub-bailment relationship relating to crude oil cargo which was stored on a vessel owned by the claimant (Euronav) docked at a Malaysian port. The defendant (BSP) brought a claim against Euronav before the Malaysian High Court which Euronav opposed on the basis that an unsigned addendum provided for a London-seated arbitration under the LMAA. Euronav subsequently commenced LMAA arbitration proceedings against BSP and argued that BSP had failed to abide by the arbitration agreement between the parties.
Euronav submitted an application before the Malaysian High Court to stay or strike out the proceedings. However, the Malaysian High Court held that in doing so, Euronav had voluntarily submitted to its jurisdiction, a substantive action in the proceedings. Subsequently, BSP was successful in obtaining an anti-arbitration injunction (AAI) from the Malaysian High Court, preventing Euronav from continuing its LMAA arbitration proceedings. Euronav appealed this decision and that appeal is pending.
Euronav then applied for an anti-anti-arbitration injunction before the English Commercial Court to set aside enforcement of the AAI awarded by the Malaysian High Court in favour of BSP. The English Commercial Court decided that even though there is a high degree of probability that the arbitration agreement is valid and binding, it would exercise discretion and not interfere in the proceedings which were already underway in the Malaysian High Court primarily due to the principle of comity between the two countries.
The relief sought by Euronav is an anti-anti-arbitration injunction. The English Court considered the appropriate threshold test for applications of this nature. The American Cyanamid1 approach of asking only whether there is a serious issue to be tried is not appropriate for injunctions of this nature due to the risk of parallel proceedings. In particular, the English Court noted that the effect of an injunction would essentially preclude BSP from litigating the claim in the Malaysian High Courts (where it has been ruled that both BSP and Euronav have submitted to its jurisdiction). The English Court said the following about the effect of the injunction sought:
‘It will permit both the Malaysian court proceedings and the London Arbitration to continue resulting in an entirely undesirable race to judgment, obvious risk of inconsistent decision making, needlessly complex and expensive enforcement issues and obvious duplication of work in two jurisdictions at enormous avoidable cost […].’2
The burden is on the applicant (Euronav) to prove to “a high degree of probability” that there is an arbitration agreement which governs the dispute. If the applicant is able to satisfy this requirement, then the Court will exercise its discretion to restrain the pursuit of proceedings which were brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, unless there are strong reasons put forward by the defendant to refuse the relief sought.3
At paragraph 28 of the judgment, the English Court said:
‘If an applicant cannot prove the existence (or breach) of an applicable arbitration (or exclusive jurisdiction) agreement to a high degree of probability […], then the court should not be contemplating making such an order.’4
In this case, the English Court assessed not only the unsigned addendum (which contained the arbitration agreement and terms), but also the conduct between the parties. The English Court held that there is a high probability that an arbitration agreement has been agreed. The English Court then went on to consider whether an injunction should be granted as a matter of discretion.
The English Court applied its discretion in the circumstances of this case and determined that it ‘ought to refuse to consider whether to grant the injunction sought until after determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeal of Malaysia’ 5.
The grounds for the English Court’s dismissal of application are as follows6:
Discretion: This case shows the discretion applied by the English Courts in deciding whether to grant an anti-anti-arbitration injunction, even when it has determined that Euronav has a high probability of success of showing there is a valid and binding arbitration agreement which BSP has breached.
Comity: Central to the English Court's decision was the principle of comity, which emphasises respect for the legal processes and decisions of foreign jurisdictions. The English Court decided to not grant an anti-anti-arbitration injunction to set aside the AAI, it instead adjourned the case until after Euronav’s appeal is determined by the Malaysian Court of Appeal.
Delay: BSP had served its Statement of Claim at the Malaysian High Court on 16 October 2023 whereas Euronav submitted its application for an injunction at the English Commercial Court on 5 February 2024, with almost four months of delay. This case highlights delay as a factor which weighed in the discretion of the Court’s decision.
Publication
We have contributed the Singapore chapter of Getting the Deal Through, Government Investigations 2025.
Publication
The private credit market and direct lending have grown and diversified immensely in the past decade, offering alternative sources and terms of debt compared to those historically provided by the syndicated leveraged loan and public issuance markets. Consequently, they are fast becoming pivotal components in the capital ecosystem, so much so that the Bank of England consider that the private credit market is currently responsible for approximately $1.8 trillion of debt issuance, which is four times its size in 2015. This growth has been particularly pronounced in Europe and the US but there has also been significant activity in Asia.
Publication
The EU’s Artificial Intelligence Regulation, commonly referred to as the AI Act, is expected to come into force during the summer of 2024 (the AI Act). The AI Act will be the first comprehensive legal framework for the use and development of artificial intelligence (AI), and is intended to ensure that AI systems developed and used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly.
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023