The decision confirms that an arbitration agreement will be upheld in the face of insolvency proceedings only if it can be shown that the petition debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds.
By Martin Davies, Dominic Geiser, and Oliver Middleton
The Privy Council’s decision in Sian Participation Corp (in liq) v. Halimeda International Ltd [2024] UKPC 16 (Sian Participation) is the latest in a series of judgments clarifying the common law position on whether the court can
The recent case of ADM Asia-Pacific Trading PTE Ltd v PT Budi Semesta Satria [1] illustrates the need for parties to act promptly and carefully when faced with proceedings contrary to an arbitration agreement.
The court refused to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain proceedings in favour of arbitration because the claimant had actively engaged in the proceedings for over a year and delayed in making its application for relief.
The Facts
ADM Asia-Pacific Trading PTE Ltd (ADM) and PT Budi Semesta Satria (BSS) entered into a stock finance agreement (the Agreement) which contained a jurisdiction clause referring to the Indonesian courts. As contemplated by the Agreement, the parties entered into a separate contract for the sale (by ADM) and the purchase (by BSS) of soybeans containing an arbitration clause with the seat in London (the Sale Contract).
BSS refused to pay the full purchase price complaining that the quality of goods was not in accordance with the Sale Contract, which ADM refuted. On 22 May 2013, BSS commenced proceedings in the Indonesia courts relying on the jurisdiction clause in the Agreement.
The English High Court has again demonstrated its willingness to exercise supervisory jurisdiction in support of arbitration proceedings by granting an anti-suit injunction and a freezing order against a party which started foreign court proceedings despite an arbitration agreement. This judgment emphasises the English courts’ desire to uphold and protect arbitration agreements when a party tries to evade arbitration.