-fold: first, that the Tribunal allowed New Metallurgy to file the Further Reply and second, that it did not direct Siddiqsons to provide a further response. This complaint was a non-starter.31 While New Metallurgy may have filed the Further Reply without leave, and the Tribunal may have accepted and considered the same, those in themselves do not amount to a breach of natural justice. Importantly:(a) Siddiqsons did not object to the Further Reply, nor did it ask the Tribunal for leave to respond to it. The Tribunal only issued its decision on the substantive law issue 17 days after the

other hand, are more relevant to the grant of “non-contractual” anti-suit injunctions: VKC at [18].Anti-suit injunctions granted in exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction32 Unlike Grounds 1 to 3 advanced by OKI (which sought to invoke the court’s equitable jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions), Ground 4 was an appeal to the court’s inherent jurisdiction. 33 It is settled that there exists “the inherent power of the forum court to protect the integrity of its processes once set in motion” through the grant of anti-suit injunctions: BCS at [54]. For convenience, I will refer

(“Hong Kong”). The courts of Hong Kong shall have non-exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with this notice or its subject matter.10 Techteryx contended that the JWI Notice jurisdiction clause had superseded the arbitration agreements in the SAA and the MSA.The parties’ claimsTrueCoin’s claims against Techteryx in arbitration11 TrueCoin asserted that Techteryx failed to meet its payment obligations under the Agreements, and commenced two SIAC arbitrations (Nos 602 and 603 of 2023) against Techteryx on 17 November 2023. 9

;  AWS at para 2. 5 The Contract and the PB contained different dispute resolution clauses. Clause 9 of the PB provided that “the parties agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts”. 6 Foot Note 6 ×

In the GENERAL DIVISION OF THE high court of the republic of singapore[2024] SGHC 241Originating Application No 241 of 2024In the matter of Part 11 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (2020 Rev Ed)AndIn the matter of Section 252 and the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (2020 Rev Ed)AndIn the matter of Article 15 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border InsolvencyAndIn the matter of Sapura Fabrication Sdn BhdBetween(1)Sapura Fabrication Sdn Bhd(2)Mohd Anuar bin Taib(3)Chew Seng Heng(4)Norzaimah binti Maarof… Applicants AndGAS… Non

respondent. Despite this, the parties continued to correspond to try to resolve the issue. Eventually, the respondent terminated the Varied SPA on 27 May 2020 on the basis that the non-delivery on 26 April 2020 constituted a repudiatory breach by HN Singapore of the Varied SPA. 8 In June 2020, HN Singapore transferred US$1,532,380.65 back to the respondent. HN Singapore did not refund the balance sum of US$237,619.35 (“the Balance Purchase Price”) on the basis that the amount was spent on “non-refundable charges, expenses and fees”. 9 Accordingly, the respondent filed Suit 160 against HN

“Particular Conditions”) (collectively, the “Contract”). 6 Under cl 2.1.1 of the REDAS Conditions, Star Engineering was to provide “an unconditional on-demand bond … in lieu of the cash deposit” for the sum of $856,000. Star Engineering duly provided Pollisum Engineering with an unconditional on-demand performance bond, namely Performance Bond No 2019-A0688351-GPB dated 15 November 2019 (the “PB”), which was issued by Great Eastern.7 The Contract and the PB each contained different dispute resolution clauses: (a) Clause 9 of the PB provided that “the parties agree to submit to the non

---

unconditional on-demand performance bond, namely Performance Bond No 2019-A0688351-GPB dated 15 November 2019 (the “PB”), which was issued by Great Eastern.3 The Contract and the PB each contained different dispute resolution clauses. Clause 9 of the PB provided that “the parties agree to submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Singapore Courts”. The Contract contained a typical widely worded arbitration agreement between Star Engineering and Pollisum Engineering. Clause 33.2.1 of the REDAS Conditions stated that “[i]n the event of any dispute between the [p]arties in connection with or

Centre for settlement. The dispute resolution process does not affect the continued execution of the non-disputed clause.(c) Clause 9.2 of the ETA states the following: 10 Foot Note 10 ×  JLJ at p

enforcement under Art 36(1) of the Model Law exists.The non-applicability of res judicata or issue estoppel21 For the avoidance of doubt, I note that PIMD contends, in the context of its own application under OA 1, that Phoenix is precluded by virtue of my previous Judgment from asserting that the Final Award is not valid and binding on the basis of res judicata and/or issue estoppel. So far as relevant, I deal with that below. In any event, I do not consider that anything that I decided in my previous Judgment precludes Phoenix from arguing that the Court should refuse recognition or enforcement

decision-making may be subject to criticism and was likely to be contested: Yap Cheng Ghee Bob (in his capacity as the joint and several interim judicial manager of Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd) and others v Envy Asset Management Pte Ltd and other matters [2024] 4 SLR 746 (“Bob Yap”) at [30].(b) The Singapore court was the natural forum for the determination of the Issues. 23 Foot Note 23