Most Singapore companies that sign an arbitration clause never think about it again until a dispute erupts, and by then the question is usually how to get out of court and into arbitration, not the other way round. Occasionally, though, a company finds itself on the receiving end of an arbitration notice it believes should never have been issued at all: perhaps there was never a valid arbitration agreement, perhaps the notice is a tactical move designed to harass rather than resolve a genuine dispute, or perhaps the counterparty is ignoring an exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to the Singapore courts. In that situation, a director may ask whether the Singapore courts can simply stop the arbitration before it goes any further. The short answer is: rarely, and only in narrow circumstances. This article explains what an anti-arbitration injunction is, when Singapore courts will actually grant one, and what a company facing (or considering) such an application needs to know.
1. What the Application Is
An anti-arbitration injunction is a court order that restrains a party from commencing, or continuing, arbitration proceedings. It is the mirror image of two other remedies that are much more commonly used in Singapore, and it is important not to confuse the three:
- An anti-arbitration injunction stops an arbitration. It is sought from the Singapore courts, typically where the applicant says there is no valid arbitration agreement at all, or that the arbitration itself is vexatious or oppressive.
- An anti-suit injunction does the opposite: it stops a party from pursuing foreign court proceedings that breach an arbitration agreement, in favour of arbitration proceeding.
- A stay of court proceedings under section 6 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (the "IAA") pauses court litigation so that a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement can go to arbitration instead. This is the most frequently used of the three remedies and, again, points in the opposite direction from an anti-arbitration injunction.
For a Singapore-incorporated company, an anti-arbitration injunction is usually considered when a counterparty has filed, or is threatening to file, a notice of arbitration and the company genuinely believes it never agreed to arbitrate that dispute, or that the arbitration is being used as a tool of harassment rather than a genuine attempt to resolve a real disagreement. It is not a tool for a company that simply thinks it will lose the arbitration, or that would prefer a Singapore court to hear the matter for convenience.
2. Legal Basis
Singapore is strongly pro-arbitration as a matter of policy, and this shapes everything about how the courts approach anti-arbitration injunctions. The starting point is the doctrine of competence-competence: an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any challenge to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement itself. This is not a Singapore-specific invention. It is Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which is given the force of law in Singapore by section 3 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (subject to limited exceptions that are not relevant here) and set out in the First Schedule to the Act.
Section 6 IAA: the default is to let arbitration proceed
Section 6 of the IAA governs what happens when a party sues in court over a matter that is covered by an arbitration agreement. On an application by the other party, the court must stay its own proceedings unless satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed. This is a mandatory stay regime that pushes disputes towards arbitration, not away from it. An anti-arbitration injunction sits on the opposite side of the same coin: instead of asking a Singapore court to step back so arbitration can proceed, the applicant is asking the court to step in and stop the arbitration proceeding at all. Because this cuts directly against competence-competence and the pro-arbitration policy embedded in the IAA, Singapore courts treat it as an exceptional remedy, and grant it far less readily than a stay under section 6 or an anti-suit injunction restraining foreign court proceedings.
The leading Singapore authority: the "chicken and egg" problem
The clearest illustration of how Singapore courts handle this is Malini Ventura v Knight Capital Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 225. The plaintiff had been named as guarantor under a personal guarantee containing a SIAC arbitration clause, and when the defendants commenced SIAC arbitration to enforce the guarantee, she claimed her signature on the guarantee had been forged, meaning no arbitration agreement existed at all. She asked the tribunal to stay its own proceedings; the tribunal declined. She then applied to the Singapore High Court for a declaration that the arbitration was a nullity and for an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing with it, essentially an anti-arbitration injunction.
The High Court dismissed her application. It held that where the very existence of an arbitration agreement is disputed, the arbitral tribunal generally gets the first opportunity to decide the question, provided the party relying on the arbitration agreement can show, on a prima facie basis only, that an agreement existed. The court was satisfied that threshold was met (based on the circumstances in which the guarantee had been signed and communicated, and expert handwriting evidence) and declined to intervene, leaving the jurisdictional challenge to be argued before the tribunal itself. The decision confirms that even an allegation that there is no valid arbitration agreement at all will usually not be enough, on its own, to obtain an anti-arbitration injunction in Singapore. The bar is a low prima facie threshold in favour of letting the tribunal decide first, not a full merits inquiry by the court.
Section 12A: interim relief is a different, narrower door
Separately, section 12A of the IAA gives the General Division of the High Court power to grant interim measures in support of Singapore-seated arbitrations, including interim injunctions, but only if or to the extent the arbitral tribunal (or an emergency arbitrator) has no power, or is unable for the time being, to act effectively. This provision exists to support arbitration, not to restrain it, and the court will generally decline to intervene where recourse to the tribunal or an emergency arbitrator remains available. It is not a general gateway for stopping an arbitration a party dislikes.
3. Who Can Apply
An application to restrain arbitration proceedings can, in principle, be brought by:
- A party to the arbitration agreement who disputes that the agreement is valid, that it covers the dispute in question, or who says the arbitration has been brought or is being conducted in a manner that is vexatious or oppressive.
- A non-party who has been named or joined in an arbitration and disputes that any arbitration agreement binds them at all, for example where a guarantee or contract is alleged to be forged, void, or never validly executed by that entity or individual.
In both cases, the applicant must be prepared for the court to lean towards letting the tribunal decide the jurisdictional question first, applying the prima facie threshold described above, rather than resolving the merits of the challenge itself.
4. Step-by-Step Process
An application to restrain arbitration proceedings in Singapore generally proceeds as follows.
- Engage a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor immediately. This is a specialised area of arbitration law, and the wrong first move (such as taking a further step in the arbitration itself without reserving your position) can undermine the application before it is even filed.
- Raise the jurisdictional objection with the tribunal first, where one has already been constituted. Given competence-competence, a Singapore court will usually expect the tribunal to have had the opportunity to rule on its own jurisdiction, or will expect a good explanation for why that route was not taken.
- File an originating application in the General Division of the High Court seeking an injunction restraining the counterparty from commencing or continuing the arbitration, supported by an affidavit setting out the factual basis for the application (for example, evidence of forgery, absence of any concluded agreement, or a pattern of conduct said to be vexatious or oppressive).
- Apply for interim relief if urgency requires it, pending determination of the substantive application. The court will weigh the usual interim injunction factors (serious question to be tried, adequacy of damages, balance of convenience) but against the backdrop of the high threshold that applies to this category of relief and the strong policy in favour of leaving jurisdiction to the tribunal.
- Expect the court to apply a high threshold. Given the reluctance illustrated in Malini Ventura, an applicant should not assume that raising a jurisdictional objection alone will secure an injunction; the court will look for something closer to a clear case where the arbitration agreement plainly does not exist or bind the applicant, or where the proceedings are plainly being used oppressively.
- Be prepared for the application to be dismissed and the arbitration to proceed, with the jurisdictional challenge left to be argued before the tribunal itself, and any further recourse limited to a subsequent challenge to, or resistance to enforcement of, the resulting award.
5. Documents Required
| Document | Purpose |
|---|---|
| The contract or instrument said to contain the arbitration agreement (or the alleged forged/void version) | Establishes what the parties agreed, or did not agree, to arbitrate |
| The notice of arbitration and any tribunal correspondence | Shows what has actually been commenced and on what basis |
| Any ruling by the tribunal on its own jurisdiction (if one has been sought) | Demonstrates whether the "first bite" has already been taken, and with what result |
| Evidence supporting the ground relied on (e.g. handwriting expert evidence for a forgery allegation, correspondence showing vexatious conduct, or the relevant exclusive jurisdiction clause) | Meets the evidential burden the court will expect on an exceptional remedy |
| A supporting affidavit setting out the full factual chronology | Forms the evidential basis for the originating application and any interim relief sought |
| Corporate authorisation (board resolution) to commence proceedings | Confirms the company has properly authorised the application |
6. Timeline and Costs
| Stage | Realistic Timeline |
|---|---|
| Urgent interim application (if genuinely time-critical) | Days to a few weeks, depending on urgency and court availability |
| Full hearing of the originating application | Several months from filing to judgment, longer if contested on the facts |
| Any appeal | Several additional months |
| Cost Consideration | Notes |
|---|---|
| Legal fees | Typically substantial, given the need for detailed affidavit evidence and often expert evidence (e.g. on forgery) |
| Costs risk if unsuccessful | Singapore follows the general rule that costs follow the event; given the courts’ well-documented reluctance to grant this relief, an unsuccessful applicant faces a real risk of paying the other side’s costs on top of its own |
| Parallel arbitration costs | The arbitration itself will usually continue in parallel unless and until an injunction is actually granted, so fees may be incurred on both fronts |
7. What Happens After the Order
If the injunction is granted (the less likely outcome), the counterparty is restrained from commencing or continuing the arbitration, and the underlying dispute will typically need to be resolved through the courts or through a fresh, validly constituted process, as appropriate.
If the application is refused, which Singapore case law suggests is the far more common outcome, the arbitration proceeds and the jurisdictional objection is argued before the tribunal itself in the first instance. If the tribunal ultimately rules that it has no jurisdiction, the arbitration falls away at that stage. If the tribunal rules that it does have jurisdiction and later issues an award, the objecting party’s remaining options are to challenge or resist enforcement of the award afterwards, for example by applying to set aside the award on jurisdictional grounds, or by raising jurisdiction as a ground to resist enforcement if the award is later brought to Singapore, or a New York Convention country, for recognition and enforcement. This is an important practical point for directors to understand: failing to obtain an anti-arbitration injunction is very rarely the end of the road, it simply means the jurisdictional fight happens later, before the tribunal and potentially the courts, rather than at the outset.
8. Frequently Asked Questions
Can I stop an arbitration in Singapore?
Only in narrow circumstances. Singapore courts are reluctant to grant anti-arbitration injunctions because of the strong pro-arbitration policy and the competence-competence principle, which generally gives the tribunal the first opportunity to decide its own jurisdiction. It is not simply a route to escape an arbitration you would prefer to avoid.
What is competence-competence?
It is the principle, found in Article 16 of the Model Law (given force of law in Singapore under section 3 and the First Schedule of the IAA), that an arbitral tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction, including challenges to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, before a court steps in.
What is the difference between an anti-arbitration injunction and an anti-suit injunction?
An anti-arbitration injunction restrains a party from commencing or continuing arbitration. An anti-suit injunction does the opposite: it restrains a party from pursuing court proceedings (often in a foreign jurisdiction) in breach of an arbitration agreement, so that the dispute goes to arbitration as agreed.
How is this different from a stay of court proceedings under section 6 of the IAA?
A section 6 stay pauses court litigation so a dispute can go to arbitration instead, and Singapore courts grant this readily where a valid arbitration agreement covers the dispute. An anti-arbitration injunction does the reverse: it asks the court to stop the arbitration itself, and is granted far more rarely.
What if the tribunal decides it does have jurisdiction and I disagree?
You are not without remedy. Depending on the circumstances, you may be able to challenge that ruling before the tribunal completes the arbitration, seek to set aside the resulting award, or resist enforcement of the award on jurisdictional grounds later.
Is there a well-known Singapore case on this?
Yes. In Malini Ventura v Knight Capital Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 225, the Singapore High Court dismissed an application for an injunction to restrain a SIAC arbitration, holding that where a valid arbitration agreement exists on a prima facie basis, the question of the agreement’s validity, including an allegation of forgery, is generally for the tribunal to decide first.
A Note on Getting the Right Advice Early
Because this is a genuinely narrow and technical area, involving the interaction of the IAA, the Model Law, and case-specific evidence (such as whether a signature was forged, or whether conduct crosses the threshold into vexatious or oppressive), a company should not attempt to navigate an anti-arbitration injunction application without specialised counsel. Getting early legal advice, and where appropriate coordinating the corporate and evidentiary groundwork through your corporate services provider’s handoff to litigation counsel, makes a material difference to how quickly and coherently the application can be put together.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork, ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
Email: [email protected]
Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services