CYY v CYZ

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 101 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 101 High Court (General Division) 18 April 2023 HC/OA 624/2022 28 min read

3 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	18 April 2023
Judge	Philip Jeyaretnam
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Counsel	Clasis LLC, Providence Law Asia LLC, S. S. Parhar Law Corporation, Tham Lijing LLC, Cai Jianye Edwin, Leo Zhi Wei (Liang Zhiwei), Lim Qiu Yi, Regina, Parhar Sunita Sonya, Tay Xi Ying (Dai Xiying), Tham Lijing, Vergis S Abraham

Source: [2023] SGHC 101, High Court (General Division), decided 18 April 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Agreement — Scope — Distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility Arbitration — Arbitral tribunal — Jurisdiction — Section 10(3)(a) International Arbitration Act 1994

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Philip Jeyaretnam Delivered

Counsel (11)

Clasis LLC Firm Providence Law Asia LLC Firm S. S. Parhar Law Corporation Firm Tham Lijing LLC Firm Cai Jianye Edwin Counsel Claimant Leo Zhi Wei (Liang Zhiwei) Counsel Claimant Lim Qiu Yi, Regina Counsel Respondent Parhar Sunita Sonya Counsel Respondent Tay Xi Ying (Dai Xiying) Counsel Claimant Tham Lijing Counsel Respondent Vergis S Abraham Counsel Claimant

Parties (2)

CYY Claimant CYZ Respondent

Case Significance

CYY v CYZ [2023] SGHC 101 is a reserved judgment of Philip Jeyaretnam J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 18 April 2023 in Originating Application No 624 of 2022. The claimant, CYY, challenges a positive jurisdictional ruling by an arbitral tribunal dated 31 August 2022, seeking under s 10(3)(a) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 a declaration that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear certain claims brought by the respondent, CYZ. CYY's objection is that the claims fall outside the scope of a contractual clause that it says should be interpreted narrowly, raising the question whether the objection goes to jurisdiction rather than the merits. The parties are companies involved in the marine salvage industry.

[2023] SGHC 101 explained

CYY v CYZ ([2023] SGHC 101) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 18 April 2023. It is categorised under Arbitration. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 101 about?

CYY v CYZ ([2023] SGHC 101) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Agreement — Scope — Distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility” and “Arbitration — Arbitral tribunal — Jurisdiction — Section 10(3)(a) International Arbitration Act 1994”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 101 consider?

The judgment refers to Arbitration Act (Cap 10), International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), and International Arbitration Act (Cap 10). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

CYY, the charterer of a crane barge used in a marine salvage operation, challenged an arbitral tribunal's positive jurisdictional ruling under s 10(3)(a) of the International Arbitration Act 1994, arguing that certain payment claims fell outside a contractual clause. The key question was whether the clause's interpretation went to the tribunal's jurisdiction or to the merits. Philip Jeyaretnam J found the issue concerned the merits, dismissed the application, and held that the tribunal has jurisdiction.

What was CYY v CYZ [2023] SGHC 101 about?

Philip Jeyaretnam J heard CYY's challenge under s 10(3)(a) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 to an arbitral tribunal's positive jurisdictional ruling dated 31 August 2022, seeking a declaration that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction over certain claims brought by CYZ.

What was the key distinction raised in CYY v CYZ [2023] SGHC 101?

The case raised the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility: CYY argued certain claims fell outside a narrowly interpreted contractual clause, prompting the question whether its objection went to the tribunal's jurisdiction rather than to the merits of the dispute.