Section 3 of the International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A) provides that the UNCITRAL Model Law (Model Law) shall have the force of law in Singapore.

Article 16 of the Model Law provides that the arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The plaintiff was the sub-contractor of the defendant. There was an arbitration clause in two sub-contracts entered into by the parties (Sub-Contracts). A dispute arose between the parties and an arbitration was scheduled for 28 February 2011. On 24 February 2011, the plaintiff filed an originating summons to stop the arbitration proceeding, which included a request for a declaration that the arbitration be terminated, pursuant to an alleged settlement agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant on 15 February 2011 (Settlement Agreement).

The plaintiff submitted that the parties had entered into the Settlement Agreement and that all the disputes between the parties had been settled. Therefore, there was no reason for the arbitration to continue.

The defendant disputed the existence of the Settlement Agreement and contended that the arbitral tribunal had the power to determine the existence of the Settlement Agreement. The defendant also submitted that the plaintiff had argued that due to the operation of the Settlement Argreement, the arbitral tribunal had become functus officio (lacking authority/power in this case). Such an argument, the defendant submitted, amounted to a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (the defendant relied on the case of Dawes v Treasure & Son Ltd [2010] EWHC 3218 which held that the issue of whether an arbitrator is functus officio was an issue that involved determination of the jurisdiction of the arbitrator) and that the arbitral tribunal was competent to judge its own jurisdiction.

The High Court held that the arbitration should proceed.

The court found that the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is invoked once a dispute arises and that a tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether there was any dispute at all. The court relied on the English law case of Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40 (see Legal update, Fiona Trust - Lords dismiss appeal) in which it was held that:

The court held that even though the Settlement Agreement was an independent contract to the Sub-Contracts, the dispute over the existence of the Settlement Agreement was a dispute which arose due to the parties' relationship established by the Sub-Contracts. The issue of whether there was a dispute (and whether it had subsequently been resolved) was a basic question that went to the root of the disagreement between the parties and fell within the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. The court relied on section 3 of the International Arbitration Act read in conjunction with article 16 of the Model Law to hold that the tribunal would be entitled to rule on its own jurisdiction.

The court concluded that unless the wording of the arbitration clause clearly stated otherwise, the existence of the Settlement Agreement (and the scope of the arbitration agreement) was for the arbitral tribunal to determine.

This case demonstrates the pro-arbitration stance that has been adopted by the Singaporean courts. The case highlights the fact that when there is an arbitration clause in an agreement, disputes arising out of that agreement are to be heard by the tribunal. Further, the tribunal has wide powers to rule on its own jurisdiction as well as the scope of the arbitration agreement.

Doshion Ltd v Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd [2011] SGHC 46.