Singapore International Commercial Court: Setting Aside a Negative Jurisdictional Decision of an Arbitral Tribunal

In Frontier Holdings Limited v Petroleum Exploration (Private) Limited [2024] SGHC(I) 34, the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) set aside a negative jurisdictional ruling by an arbitral tribunal and uniquely ordered the same tribunal to proceed. The case centered on whether an arbitration clause in concession agreements required domestic or international arbitration. The tribunal, constituted under ICC rules, found it lacked jurisdiction. The claimant successfully challenged this decision before the SICC, which set it aside.

More significant than the annulment itself was the court’s ancillary order, requiring the same tribunal to continue and issue an award. This is notable because, under the UNCITRAL Model Law, a tribunal typically becomes functus officio after issuing an award (AKN v ALC [2015] 3 SGCA 63). However, Singapore’s International Arbitration Act (IAA) includes controversial modifications that allow courts to review both positive and negative jurisdictional rulings under Section 10(3). By setting aside the negative jurisdictional ruling, the court effectively revived the tribunal’s mandate, compelling it to proceed with the arbitration. Additionally, the SICC ruled that if an arbitrator resigned or was unwilling to continue, a replacement would be appointed under Article 15 of the Model Law.

The decision reinforces Singapore’s pro-arbitration stance and the importance of careful arbitration clause drafting. However, it raises complex questions, including whether original tribunal members would continue or resign, and if they stayed, parties might question accepting their decision.