The enforcement of arbitration awards is contingent upon adherence to the legal framework governing arbitration agreements.

[1] We heard this appeal on 23 April 2015 and allowed the same with costs. This was an appeal against the order of the High Court dated 29 August 2014, dismissing the originating summons dated 13 June 2014 filed by the appellant to register an arbitration award dated 7 March 2014, for enforcement and the costs award dated 12 May 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the said award for costs"). We append below our grounds for so doing. We shall refer to the parties as they were described in the High Court, ie the appellant plaintiff and the respondent defendant.

Background Facts

[2] By a charter hire agreement dated 15 February 2013 ("the charter party") made between the plaintiff who is the disponent owner of the dredger "Gibraltar" ("the vessel") and the defendant as the charterer, the defendant had agreed to hire the vessel from the plaintiff.

[3] The plaintiff had agreed to hire out the vessel to the defendant under the charter party for a period of three months with an option to extend for another three months subject to parties agreeing on the terms of the extension, including hire.

[4] On 23 February 2013, the vessel was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant at Bintulu, Sarawak. On 30 May 2013, the defendant redelivered the vessel to the plaintiff having extended the charter party for eight days from 23 May 2013 to 30 May 2013.

[5] In breach of the terms of the charter party, the defendant has failed to make payment for the sum of US$1,921,424.05 to the plaintiff.

[6] On the 12 September 2013, the plaintiff sent a notice of arbitration to the defendant and appointed Professor Neale R Gregson, a chartered Arbitrator of the Arbitration Charters Singapore, as its nominated Arbitrator. As the defendant did not appoint a second Arbitrator, the said Professor was appointed the sole Arbitrator.

[7] The defendant did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. On 7 March 2014, the tribunal awarded the plaintiff the sum claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The tribunal also published the costs award dated 12 May 2014 and the addendum to the costs award dated 19 May 2014.

[8] The defendant did not make payment of the sum stated in the said award, hence the filing of the plaintiff's application.

[9] We are of the view that the only issue for this Court to consider is whether the defendant had made out an argument for non-registration of the said award under ss 39(1)(a)(ii) and (v) and 39(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Arbitration Act 2005 . Reference is also drawn to the relevant provisions of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958.

[10] The defendant argued the plaintiff had commenced proceedings in the Admiralty Court in Kuala Lumpur and pleadings had been closed. It followed therefore, that parties no longer intended to be bound by the arbitration clause and the same did not apply and conferred no jurisdiction on the Arbitrator and the Court should refuse recognition for purposes of enforcement.

[11] To address this issue, we have to first look at the arbitration clause in the charter party ie cl 22 (see Rekod Rayuan Jilid 2 Bahagian B&C p 108) which we set out below:

"This contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Singapore law. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A) and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof save to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this clause.

The arbitration shall be c