Description

The issue of subject-matter arbitrability may arise in various contexts during the pre-award stage. When the issue arises, which law should the court apply in deciding if the dispute is arbitrable? This could well have a decisive impact on the court’s determination.

In Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings [2023] 1 SLR 349 (“Westbridge”), the Singapore Court of Appeal adopted a “composite” approach, in which it assessed the arbitrability of a dispute by reference to both the law governing the arbitration agreement and the law of the seat. The Court of Appeal’s approach in Westbridge was premised on the importance of public policy – which, in its view, extended to foreign public policy – to issues of arbitrability.

There may be concerns with the manner in which the Court of Appeal relied on such public policy considerations in arriving at the “composite” approach. This session examines these and other concerns regarding the decision and explores a potentially sounder foundation for the Court of Appeal’s “composite” approach, one based on established choice of law principles.

Speaker Bio

Chuan Tat is Head (Law Programmes) and Senior Lecturer at the School of Law, Singapore University of Social Sciences. He also maintains a practice as Counsel at Breakpoint LLC (Singapore)

Chuan Tat’s core research interests and practice areas coincide – he focuses on the fields of international dispute resolution (litigation and arbitration), and civil and commercial law.

Chuan Tat completed his LLB at the National University of Singapore. He then obtained his LLM from Columbia Law School. He is admitted to practise law in Singapore, England & Wales, and the State of New York.