Interpreting and enforcing conflicting jurisdiction and arbitration clauses in the Singapore courts: Silverlink Resorts Ltd v MS First Capital Insurance Ltd [2020] SGHC 251

This article observes that there may be at least three substantially different contexts under which conflicting jurisdiction and arbitration clauses may be construed: i) when the conflict (broadly) occurs within the same contractual document, under a section providing for dispute resolution mechanisms; ii) when the conflict occurs amidst a chain of contracts or related contracts concluded by the parties in such a manner where one does not supersede the other; and iii) in poorly-structured multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanisms. This article also provides a brief contrast regarding the interpretation and enforcement of co-existing jurisdiction and arbitration agreements by the courts. Against this detailed background, this article critiques the High Court’s judgment in Silverlink Resorts Ltd v MS First Capital Insurance Ltd [2020] SGHC 251, arguing that the court ought to have first paid meticulous attention to the precise drafting of the disputed clause, before turning to precedents for assistance in its interpretation.