A dispute arose between the parties pursuant to a charter party, which provided that any disputes arising should be referred to arbitration in London, with one arbitrator to be appointed by each party unless the parties agreed on a single arbitrator. Minoutsi appointed an arbitrator. As Continental failed to nominate an arbitrator, Minoutsi called upon its arbitrator to assume the function of sole arbitrator. Upon giving notice to both parties, the arbitrator made his award in favour of Minoutsi. Minoutsi then began an action in Singapore against Continental for the sum awarded by the arbitrator in London. It then applied to the Singapore court for leave to sign final judgment against Continental under O 14 of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970.
Continental opposed the application and argued that the arbitration award was bad because Continental had not nominated an arbitrator, and had not agreed that the law of England would apply to the arbitration. The Court held that the arbitration was conducted in accordance with the charter party and the award was thus a good one. The charter party was silent as to what law should govern the arbitration and also as to what should take place if one of the parties failed to nominate an arbitrator when called upon to do by the other party. As such, with the parties’ agreement that the arbitration should take place in London and in the absence of any specific provisions to the contrary, the law of England should apply to the arbitration proceedings.

An arbitration award was issued in London – Glasworthy came to the Singapore courts and obtained leave to enforce the award. Glory Wealth Shipping (GWS) applied to set aside the order granting leave to enforce. The 2010 Refusal to grant application to set aside order granting leave to enforce arbitration award USD 40million application was dismissed, but dissatisfied, GWS appealed on three grounds – that the award contained a decision on the matter beyond the scope of submissions to arbitration; that the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties and the enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of Singapore. The Court held that GWS was not entitled to apply to set aside the order granting leave to enforced, which amounted to an abuse of process, as GWS had elected to proceed in the English courts. In the alternative, GWS had not sufficiently established the grounds asserted on appeal.