JUDGMENT

Lee Swee Seng JCA:

[1] The narrative of this case was rather predictable. A contractor appointed under a PAM Contract had gone into liquidation. The employer thus terminated the employment of the contractor. The contractor commenced a suit in the High Court to claim for an amount due under some interim payment certificates. The employer disputed the claim and applied under s 10 Arbitration Act 2005 (" AA 2005") for a stay of the Court proceedings pending reference to arbitration as there was a valid arbitration agreement in the PAM Contract 2007 (With Quantities) ("PAM Contract") that the parties had entered into.

[2] The argument against the stay became more novel when the liquidator for the contractor in liquidation contended that the arbitration agreement had become inoperative with the liquidation and that the high costs and expenses in arbitration would justify the Court refusing a stay in preference to a less expensive method of resolving disputes having regard to the cash flow problem of the contractor.

[3] Some cases from other jurisdictions like the UK, Canada and Singapore were cited as support for the proposition that upon liquidation, a liquidator is entitled t