This case is a welcome confirmation of the application of the jurisdictional principle in cases where the existence of the arbitration agreement is contentious. It is now clear that parties challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement in Singapore should do so before the Arbitration Tribunal itself, unless there is very strong evidence that there is no arbitration agreement. With its decision, the Singapore court strengthened its pro-arbiter attitude and the policy of primacy over the arbitral tribunal. Hong Kong – NG Arbitration Regulation or AO (Cap. 609) applies to arbitration proceedings under an arbitration agreement, whether the agreement is reached in Hong Kong or the place of arbitration is in Hong Kong. The regulation is largely based on UNCIR`s model international commercial arbitration law. In its recent decision in the Malini Ventura/Knight Capital Pte Ltd- others  SGHC 225 case, the Singapore Supreme Court rejected an application for non-compliance with the SIAC arbitration procedure on the basis of the absence of an arbitration agreement, pursuant to Directive 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act (“IAA”). The Singapore Supreme Court first outlined the correct approach for determining such issues and found that the court could determine the issue as a pre-jurisdictional issue. In this case, the Singapore courts` respect for the principle of jurisdiction is again emphasized, so that the court has the first word on matters within its jurisdiction. (1) An arbitration agreement is an agreement between the parties, any or certain disputes that have arisen or may arise between them regarding a defined legal relationship, whether contractual or not. 2. An arbitration agreement may take the form of a compromise clause in a contract or in the form of a separate agreement.
(3) The arbitration agreement must be made in writing. Third parties may at any time accept the link to this arbitration agreement in any document that must be forwarded to the parties to this contract (agreement). The applicant submitted that the signing of the guarantee was not its own, which means that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that, therefore, the Singapore courts, not the tribunal (which was already constituted), have jurisdiction to establish the existence of the arbitration agreement. In the area of non-consumers, an arbitration agreement must be written and signed by the parties in order to be linked to it. All you need is an exchange of letters, correspondence or a similar data transfer (if there is evidence). A valid arbitration agreement between non-consumers can be concluded by including, referring to the terms and conditions of sale. However, if bound by German law, the compromise clause is subject to the legal validity of the terms and conditions of sale (Article 305 and following BGB). For consumers, the arbitration agreement must be separated from the contract to which it applies and personally signed by both parties to be valid. In Sheltam Rail Co (Pty) Ltd/Mirambo Holdings Ltd  EWHC 829 (Comm), the applicant commenced proceedings to challenge a sentence on judicial grounds and then attempted to close the proceedings with a declaration of dismissal. For Mr. Aikens, the question was whether the notice should be set aside in order for the validity of the award to be determined by the English court or whether it was appropriate to leave to the arbitrator`s court an outstanding issue that could be raised in the context of an enforcement proceeding abroad.
In its decision, the High Court of Singapore cited the chapter entitled “Commentary on the UnCIR Model Law,” written in collaboration with Stavros L. Brekoulakis in Concise International Arbitration, which outlines the differences in the approach of national courts on the issue of jurisdictional principles and whether jurisdictional issues arising from an arbitration agreement dispute should be decided by the national court itself.