SIAC explores emergency arbitrator appointments

In last month’s column we looked at the circumstances and conditions surrounding the need for urgent interim relief at the time of commencement of arbitration proceedings, be it securing assets that form the subject matter of the arbitration, preserving documents or property, or any other form of interim relief to ensure maintenance of the status quo until the dispute has been decided.

In this column we will examine the facts of two SIAC cases where an emergency arbitrator (EA) was appointed. As an illustration of how impressively efficient the timings can be in SIAC practice, it is worth having regard to the facts of some of the cases we have seen.

CASE 1
Claimant: Indonesian
Respondent: Chinese

Broad nature of interim relief sought: This occurred over the Chinese New Year holiday. The dispute between a Chinese company and an Indonesian company was in relation to the quality of a shipment of coal. The Indonesian shipper wanted to sell the cargo of coal pending the resolution of the dispute, as the cargo was deteriorating. They contacted the SIAC on Monday morning, warning us of their intention to make an emergency arbitrator application. The Indonesian applicant filed their papers at 2pm and by 5pm an experienced Singaporean shipping lawyer was appointed as the emergency arbitrator.

The emergency arbitrator gave his preliminary directions that evening and a hearing was scheduled for the next day. On the next day, he made an order permitting the sale and directing the respondents to co-operate to permit the cargo to leave the port.

The authors, Arvin Lee and Rachel Foxton, have held positions as the SIAC’s Deputy Head (China) and Counsel, and Director (Business Development), respectively. Lee left the SIAC in June 2013 to join Rajah & Tann’s International Arbitration Practice Group and Foxton is now working at Clifford Chance Asia. Please direct future enquiries to chinadesk@siac.org.sg