Abstract:
In Sian Participation Corp v Halimeda International Ltd [2024] 3 WLR 937, the Privy Council had to consider the following question: What is the correct test to be applied by the court in deciding whether to proceed with winding up proceedings, where the disputed debt is subject to an arbitration agreement? In its decision, the Privy Council overturned the prevailing English approach by holding that winding up proceedings are only to be stayed where debts are disputed on genuine and substantial grounds. This note evaluates the Privy Council’s approach and argues that Singapore should not follow suit. This is because the Privy Council falsely assumed that the mandatory stay regime under Art 8 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration does not apply when, in fact, it should.