The intersection of the arbitration and insolvency regimes has once again come under judicial scrutiny. In Aryan (SEA) Private Limited v Pure Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 99 (Aryan), the General Division of the High Court of Singapore considered whether an application to restrain a winding-up petition raised a dispute that prima facie fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement or amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.
This decision serves as a useful reminder that the Singapore court will not countenance any abuse of its winding-up jurisdiction, including where, as demonstrated in Aryan, the debtor company is solvent and has a cross-claim which prima facie falls within the scope of an arbitration agreement. In such circumstances, the court will consider the invocation of the insolvency process counter-productive.
In this update, we take a closer look at the decision in Aryan and discuss a few key observations and strategic considerations that may arise where a dispute over a debt is subject to an arbitration agreement, and particularly where the dispute resolution clause is not perfectly crafted.
If you would like information and/or assistance on the above or any other area of law, you may wish to contact the Partner at WongPartnership whom you normally work with or any of the following Partners:
Adnaan NOOR
Partner – Restructuring & Insolvency and Special Situations Advisory
d +65 6416 2477
e adnaan.noor@wongpartnership.com
Click here to view Adnaan’s CV.
Eden LI
Partner – Restructuring & Insolvency and Special Situations Advisory
d +65 6517 3766
e eden.li@wongpartnership.com
Click here to view Eden’s CV.