Oral

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] This is the judgment of the court.

[2] We are unanimous in holding that this appeal must be allowed. The short facts which form the background of this appeal are as follows. There is an agreement in writing between the appellant and the respondent. It contains an arbitration clause which selects Singapore as the forum. In 2007 two persons unconcerned with the contract between the appellant and respondent commenced proceedings against the respondent and one other. The appellant then took out an application to intervene in the action for the sole purpose of taking possession of the tunnel component constructed by the respondent for use in the construction of the Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) in Singapore. The appellant deposited in court the purchase price of that component. Later, it terminated the agreement which it had with the respondent. Later still, it took out another application for leave to take possession from the respondent of further components of the tunnel segment. The respondent then applied to the High Court in Muar and obtained an injunction restraining the appellant from instituting arbitration proceedings in Singapore pursuant to t