In a recent judgment L Capital Jones Ltd Vs Maniach Pte Ltd, dated 09th January 2017, Singapore Court of Appeal dealt with the question of arbitrability of minority oppression claims with particular reference to whether there is a public policy exception to the General Rule stated in its earlier judgment of Tomolugen Holdings Ltd Vs Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals (2016)1SLR37, that minority oppression claims are generally arbitrable.
The respondent Maniach Pte Ltd is a Singapore Company owned and controlled by John Manos (“Manos”). It owns 37% of the shares in the second appellant. The First Appellant, L Capital Jones, is a Mauritius Company wholly owned by a private equity firm L capital Asia LLC (“L CAPITAL ASIA”). L Capital Jones owns the remaining 63% of the shares in JtGGH. JtGGH is a Singapore incorporated Company and was essentially the vehicle through which L Capital Jones and the Respondent carried out their Joint venture. Prior to April 2015, JtGGH owned 100% of the shares in Jones Holdings Pty Limited (“JGH”), a company incorporated in Australia. JGH owns and runs the entire “Jones the Grocer” business in Singapore, Australia and other countries.
Manos was one of two founding partners of the “Jones the Grocer” business. he bought his partner out in 2010 and became the sole owner of the business. acting through the Respondent, he then entered into a joint venture with L Capital Jones pursuant to two shareholder agreements that were entered into between L Capital Jones, the Respondent, Maos and JtGGH in July 2012 and November 2013 (collectively “ the Shareholder Agreement). Pursuant to the Shareholder Agreement, L Capital Jones invested a total of US$21m into the “Jones the Grocer” business in exchange for 63% of the shares in JtGHH. L Capital Jones therefore became the majority shareholder of JtGHH, while Manos, through the Respondent, held the remaining 37% of JtGHH’s shares. The said shareholder agreement had an arbitration Clause.
The respondent commenced the present minority oppression proceedings against the appellants by way of a suit, ignoring the arbitration clause. The appellants filed an application of stay in favour of arbitration. The High Court Judge refused to stay the suit in favour of the arbitration, stating that Minority oppression claim is not arbitrable, hence an appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal. Even though respondent agreed that the minority oppression issue is arbitrable in the light of the Judgment in Tomolugen but it contended that its specific oppression claim is not arbitrable because it raises issues of public policy, specifically the importance of protecting the integrity of the judicial process. But Court of Appeals held that the issue of “integrity of judicial process” does not arise in this case and it was not a ground raised in the High Court. Hence it reconfirmed Tomolugen as the law settled in Singapore and Oppression claims are arbitrable.
Skip & continue
In Compliance with Indian Regulations, Kindly Review the User Acknowledgement and Disclaimer below and then Proceed.
By proceeding further and clicking on the "ACCEPT" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Law Senate (LS) for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Law Senate (LS) or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below
This website (www.lawsenate.com) is a resource for informational purposes only and is intended, but not promised or guaranteed, to be correct, complete, and up-to-date. Law Senate (LS) does not warrant that the information contained on this website is accurate or complete, and hereby disclaims any and all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident or any other cause.
Law Senate (LS) further assumes no liability for the interpretation and/or use of the information contained on this website, nor does it offer a warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. The owner/Partners of this website do not intend links from this site to other internet websites to be referrals to, endorsements of, or affiliations with the linked entities. Law Senate (LS) is not responsible for, and makes no representations or warranties about, the contents of Web sites to which links may be provided from this Web site.
This website is not intended to be a source of advertising or solicitation and the contents of the website should not be construed as legal advice. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for a lawyer-client relationship and should not rely on information provided herein and should always seek the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice in the reader's country/state. Transmission, receipt or use of this website does not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. No recipients of content from this website should act, or refrain from acting, based upon any or all of the contents of this site.
Furthermore, the owner of this website does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based solely upon viewing this Web site or in a country/state where this website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. Finally, the reader is warned that the use of Internet e-mail for confidential or sensitive information is susceptible to risks of lack of confidentiality associated with sending email over the Internet.