Can a Seat Court Injunct a Foreign Non-Party to an Arbitration? Singapore High Court clarifies in Alphard Maritime v Samson Maritime (2025) SGHC 154

This visitor publish is posted on behalf of Kamakshi Puri, Senior Affiliate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Delhi, India, and dual-qualified lawyer (India and England and Wales).

The Singapore Excessive Court docket not too long ago clarified the scope of the court docket’s jurisdiction over overseas non-parties to the arbitration. In an software to put aside two interim injunctions, in Alphard Maritime Ltd. v Samson Maritime Ltd. & Ors. (2025) SGHC 154,[1] the court docket held that the the seat per se didn’t confer jurisdiction towards non-parties to an arbitration, and that jurisdiction would first should be established by common service-out procedures earlier than the seat court docket may grant an injunction towards a non-party.

Factual Background

Briefly, the applicant, Alphard Maritime (“Alphard”), initiated SCMA arbitration[2] towards its debtor, Samson Maritime (“Samson”), and Samson’s wholly owned subsidiary, Underwater Providers (“Underwater”), for alleged breach of a settlement settlement for the sale of approx. 9 vessels and Samson’s shareholding in Underwater to Alphard (“Topic Property”). Alphard initiated arbitration upon receiving info of the pledge/mortgage of the Topic Property to J M Baxi Marine Providers (“Baxi”) in breach of the Settlement Settlement. Along with the ex-parte freezing order towards Samson and Underwater, Alphard had obtained from the seat court docket, appearing in assist of the arbitration, an ex-parte prohibitory injunction restraining Baxi and different collectors of Samson from helping in or facilitating the dissipation of, or coping with, any of Samson and Underwater’s property worldwide. Baxi was not a celebration to the Settlement Settlement. Whereas one of many defendants was primarily based out of Singapore, Samson and Underwater have been certain by the jurisdiction conferred to the seat court docket; nonetheless, Baxi was a overseas non-party to the arbitration.

Whereas the interim freezing injunction towards Samson and Underwater was vacated on the discovering that there was no proof of dissipation or threat of dissipation of property, and the court docket noticed that there was no foundation for the injunction which in impact prohibited Baxi and/or the lenders from asserting their very own contractual rights or implementing proprietary rights towards Samson which pre-dated the Settlement Settlement, the injunction was vacated totally on the discovering that the Singapore court docket, because the seat court docket, had no jurisdiction over Baxi or the overseas lenders.

Seat Court docket’s Jurisdiction over Overseas Defendants

A court docket should have in personam jurisdiction to grant an injunction towards a celebration. Below Singapore regulation, which follows the English regulation on jurisdiction, jurisdiction relies on service of proceedings, and the court docket assumes jurisdiction over a overseas celebration (not having a presence in Singapore and never having submitted to the proceedings) by permission for service out of the claims. [3] The court docket permits permission for service out the place “the Singapore Court docket is the suitable discussion board for listening to the proceedings”.[4] For the evaluation of whether or not permission for service out ought to be granted, i.e., that Singapore Court docket is the suitable discussion board, the claimant is required to satisfy the next three-prong evaluation: [5]

A superb debatable case that there’s adequate nexus with the Singapore court docket;
Singapore is the discussion board conveniens; and
There’s a critical query to be tried on the deserves of the declare.

The “adequate nexus” refers back to the connection between the court docket and the defendant and follows the logic {that a} celebration could solely be referred to as to a overseas court docket the place they’ve a sufficiently robust connection to the state. Apply Instructions 63(3)(a) to (t) set out “Elements” that information as to the doable connection that the overseas defendant could have with the Singapore court docket. [6]

Alphard relied on 2 components – first, PD 63(3)(d), a declare to acquire reduction in respect of the breach of a contract ruled by the legal guidelines of Singapore. This was held to be inapplicable, as Baxi was neither a celebration to the contract, nor dedicated any breach. Second, PD 63(3)(n) claims made below another written regulation of Singapore. On this regard, it was contended that the declare towards Baxi was below Part 12A of the Worldwide Arbitration Act, i.e., an train of the Singapore court docket’s energy to grant an injunction towards non-parties in assist of Singapore-seated arbitration, which vast energy ensured that non-parties didn’t collude with the defendants to frustrate the fruits of a declare. The court docket accepted PD 63(3)(n) as a related issue.

Nevertheless, since adequate nexus with the court docket just isn’t sufficient for permission to service out, the court docket proceeded to the following fairness, i.e., whether or not Singapore was the ‘discussion board conveniens’. Discussion board conveniens is an train in figuring out probably the most applicable court docket for deciding the lis. It’s the evaluation of the connection of the dispute with the Singapore court docket. The ‘dispute’ right here was the prohibitory injunction towards Baxi. The court docket held that to be the ‘applicable court docket’ for interim reduction towards a particular celebration, it required greater than the arbitration being seated in Singapore. The seat court docket could be the suitable court docket if the dispute with the particular celebration could possibly be traced to the arbitration, or property/obligations have been considerably that of celebration to the arbitration, i.e.,

Was the non-party certain by the arbitration settlement even when it was not a celebration to the arbitration?
did the non-party maintain property in Singapore, which arguably belonged beneficially to a celebration to the arbitration (non-party was a trustee / pass-through for the property)
was the non-party a company entity held/owned by the celebration to the arbitration, and subsequently, did the dissipation of property of the celebration quantity to the dissipation of worth of the celebration (merger of identification between the celebration and non-party)?

The Court docket held that within the absence of any of the above, the seat court docket wouldn’t be the de facto applicable discussion board for injunctions towards all non-parties even when the injunction is in assist of Singapore-seated arbitration. The court docket didn’t discover any purpose for Baxi, an entity pursuing its unbiased treatment towards the Alphard, to be introduced earlier than the Singapore court docket.

Notably, Alphard had already pursued interim reduction below Part 9 of the (Indian) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, towards the Defendants, together with Baxi, earlier than the Excessive Court docket of Bombay. [7] The Bombay Excessive Court docket, appearing additional to its energy for making interim orders for defense of the subject material in arbitration, together with in worldwide business arbitration the place the place of arbitration is outdoors India [8], granted a established order injunction, together with on Baxi, on additional dealing in or creating any additional third-party pursuits within the shares held by Samson in Underwater and a disclosure order in respect to the transaction for pledge created in favour of Baxi.

Concluding Ideas

For the identified advantages of enforcement and restricted grounds of problem of awards below Singapore regulation and earlier than Singapore courts, overseas events repeatedly go for Singapore because the impartial seat of arbitration. In such instances, the one nexus of the dispute with the court docket is its designation because the seat court docket. Individually, arbitral tribunals should not have jurisdiction over non-parties to an arbitration; thus, courts assume adjudication for interim reduction functions towards non-parties to the arbitration. With this choice, the Singapore court docket has confirmed the non-seat court docket’s interference for interim reliefs the place events require protecting orders vis-a-vis non-parties to the arbitration.

[1] Accessible right here.

[2] Arbitration below the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (“SCMA”) Guidelines.

[3] S. 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Supreme Court docket of Judicature Act 1969: “16.—(1)  The Common Division has jurisdiction to listen to and check out any motion in personam the place — (a) the defendant is served with an originating declare or another originating course of — …(ii) outdoors Singapore within the circumstances authorised by and within the method prescribed by Guidelines of Court docket or Household Justice Guidelines.”

[4] Guidelines of Court docket 2021, Rule 1(1) of Order 8 of ROC 2021 “1.—(1)  An originating course of or different court docket doc could also be served out of Singapore with the Court docket’s approval if it may be proven that the Court docket has the jurisdiction or is the suitable court docket to listen to the motion” .

[5] Supreme Court docket Apply Instructions 2021, Para 63(2).

[6] Previous to 2021, this situation was just like English regulation, i.e., the “Good and debatable case {that a} gateway applies”. Whereas “gateways” have been executed away with, the Apply Directives have set out a non-exhaustive checklist of things (PD 63(3)(a)–(t)) which a claimant “ought to discuss with” so as to meet the requirement below PD 63(2)(a). These components mirror the gateways with have been earlier discovered within the Guidelines of Court docket 2014. See Ardavan Arzandeh, The New Guidelines of Court docket and the Service-Out Jurisdiction in Singapore, (2022) Singapore Journal of Authorized Research 191–201.

[7] Alphard Maritime Ltd. v Samson Maritime Restricted & Ors. Industrial Arbitration Petition (L) No.7499 of 2025, Order dated 02.04.2025, obtainable right here.

[8] Part 9 learn with Part 2(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996.