Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Easton Graham Rush and Another

Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd v Easton Graham Rush and Another

The court has no jurisdiction or power under the Model Law and the International Arbitration Act to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining an arbitrator from continuing arbitral proceedings pending a challenge under Article 13 or an application to set aside an award under Article 34 and s24 IAA; Article 5 bars intervention except where the Model Law provides, Articles 13(3) and 34(4) envisage continuation or resumption by the tribunal, and neither Article 34 nor s24 authorises an interlocutory stay; accordingly the interim injunction was refused.

Citation
[2004] SGHC 26
Parties
Plaintiff: Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd; First Defendant (appointed Arbitrator): Easton Graham Rush; Second Defendant: Keppel Engineering Pte Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
16 February 2004
Case Number
OS 108/2004, SIC 456/2004
Procedural Posture
International Arbitration Originating Summons / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction (heard and Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for interim injunction dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Court Intervention Under the UNCITRAL Model Law, Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators, Setting Aside Arbitral Awards, Interpretation of International Arbitration Act S24
Source Language
English
Arbitration International Commercial Arbitration Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Court Intervention Under the UNCITRAL Model Law Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators Setting Aside Arbitral Awards Interpretation of International Arbitration Act S24

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co Ltd

Plaintiff

Easton Graham Rush

First Defendant (appointed Arbitrator)

Keppel Engineering Pte Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

International Arbitration Originating Summons / Interlocutory Application for Interim Injunction (heard and Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has power to grant an injunction restraining an arbitrator from taking further steps in arbitral proceedings pending a challenge under Article 13 or an application to set aside an award under Article 34 and s24 IAA
  2. 2 Whether Article 5 of the Model Law and the Model Law scheme preclude interlocutory court-ordered stays of arbitration in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether s24 IAA or Article 34 supplies any basis for interlocutory relief by court

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction or power under the Model Law and the International Arbitration Act to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining an arbitrator from continuing arbitral proceedings pending a challenge under Article 13 or an application to set aside an award under Article 34 and s24 IAA; Article 5 bars intervention except where the Model Law provides, Articles 13(3) and 34(4) envisage continuation or resumption by the tribunal, and neither Article 34 nor s24 authorises an interlocutory stay; accordingly the interim injunction was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Interlocutory application for injunction dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent (Keppel Engineering Pte Ltd)