Abstract:
Does a Singapore court have the power to issue interim orders in aid of a foreign-seated arbitration? There have been a series of recent decisions by the Singapore courts on this question. Following the Court of Appeal decision in Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA [2007] 1 SLR 629, the present position is that, whilst the answer is unclear, it is at least clear that the answer lies in the interpretation of s 4(10) of the Civil Law Act. This article will argue that it is not helpful to look to s 4(10) of the Civil Law Act to discern the policy direction of the Legislature on the question. Whether or not the Singapore court has the power to issue interim orders in aid of a foreign seated arbitration impacts on Singapore’s overall reputation and attractiveness as a centre for international arbitration. This article will suggest that resolution of the issue is ultimately a policy decision best made by the Legislature. It will identify the competing policy priorities, including Singapore’s aim to be a leading centre for international arbitration. This article will also explain the secondary policy question of whether to adopt the “reciprocity” or “competition” approach to promoting Singapore as an international arbitration centre. This article will conclude that the best way forward is for the Legislature to make its will clear by amending the International Arbitration Act.