Sino Dragon Trading Ltd v Noble Resources International Pte Ltd

Sino Dragon Trading Ltd, a Hong Kong company, initiated arbitration proceedings against Noble Resources International Pte Ltd, a Singaporean subsidiary of Noble Group, in relation to a contract for the sale of iron ore. The contract contained an arbitration clause, and Noble Resources appointed Mr Mehigan as an arbitrator. Sino Dragon did not appoint an arbitrator, leading the Permanent Court of Arbitration to designate Mr Bonnell as a second arbitrator and appoint Mr Kay Hoyle as the presiding arbitrator. Sino Dragon challenged the appointments of Mr Bonnell and Mr Kay Hoyle, but before the challenge was determined by the appointing authority, it brought this application seeking various orders, including the removal of the arbitrators and the issuance of subpoenas. The court had to decide whether it had the power to decide on the challenge to the arbitrators' appointments, determine the meaning of "undue delay" under Article 14 of the Model Law, and whether it could issue orders contradicting the tribunal's rulings.

The court found that it had no power to decide on the challenge to the arbitrators' appointments since the challenge had not been determined by the appointing authority and was not unsuccessful. The court also found that the tribunal's decision to defer the jurisdictional issue to the hearing was not "undue delay" under Article 14 of the Model Law, and any declaration by the court would be outside the Article 16 regime and subject to appeal. Additionally, the court found that it did not have the power to issue orders that contradicted the tribunal's rulings, as such orders would be in aid of the arbitration.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that there was either no power or it would be inappropriate to exercise power to make each of the orders sought by Sino Dragon. The court emphasised the importance of the International Arbitration Act and the Model Law in governing the arbitration process and found that Sino Dragon's application had the potential to cause unnecessary delay to an arbitration that was not complex. The court also noted that the appointing authority had not been criticised for failing to make a decision on the challenge to the arbitrators' appointments.