An application of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in Singapore

singapore-ships

Imagine the following scenario:
You are a vessel owner who has a claim against a time charterer for failure to pay charter hire under an amended NYPE charterparty dated 2 October 2016 that provides for all disputes to be referred to the English Court. You commence proceedings in Singapore and arrest one of the vessels owned by the charterer in Singapore. The charterer then applies for a stay of the Singapore proceedings to enforce the choice of English Court agreement.

Before 1 October 2016, the Singapore Court could refuse the stay and allow you to keep the security obtained through the arrest.

After 1 October 2016, with the enactment of the Choice of Court Agreements Act (the “CCAA”), the Singapore Court must stay the Singapore proceedings and may also release the obtained security.

How did the CCAA change the outcome and what can you do to avoid a similar outcome?

 

The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in Singapore
• The Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (the “HCCCA”) was concluded in 2005 and came into force in Singapore on 1 October 2016 with the enactment of the CCAA.

• Under the HCCCA, contracting states must uphold exclusive choice of court agreements designating the courts of other contracting states. The current contracting states to the HCCCA are Mexico, the EU (excluding Denmark) and Singapore.

• Not all matters fall within the HCCCA. For example, carriage of passengers and goods, marine pollution, limitation of liability for maritime claims, emergency towage and salvage and general average are expressly excluded from the scope of the HCCCA. Conversely, matters relating to ship mortgages, bareboat and time charterparties, non-emergency salvage and towage, and ship construction and repair, would fall within the scope of the HCCCA.

• The HCCCA will also only apply to agreements that were concluded after the date the contracting state designated as the choice of court enacted the HCCCA.

• Similarly to Section 6 of the International Arbitration Act (“IAA”), Section 12 of the CCAA now makes it mandatory for the Singapore Court to stay or dismiss Singapore proceedings if the matter falls within the HCCCA and another contracting state’s court has been designated.

• However, while Section 7 of the IAA allows the Singapore Court to retain the security that has already been obtained in the Singapore proceedings that are to be stayed in order to satisfy an arbitral award, there is no similar provision in the CCAA.

• In the Evmar [1989] 1 SLR(R) 433, decided prior to the enactment of Section 7 of the IAA which granted the Singapore Court powers to retain security to satisfy an arbitral award, the Singapore Court ordered the release of the security when Singapore proceedings were stayed in favour of foreign arbitration. It is, therefore, likely that the Singapore Court would similarly order the release of security if Singapore proceedings are stayed pursuant to the CCAA.

What can you do?
At the time of writing, the HCCCA and the CCAA are yet to be tested by the Singapore Court. In light of such uncertainties, parties should consider using non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses or exclusive jurisdiction clauses that expressly exclude application of the HCCCA and the CCAA in their contracts. Alternatively, parties may incorporate arbitration agreements into all contracts until it becomes clear how the Singapore Court would apply the HCCCA and the CCAA.

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: