DAY v DAZ

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 185 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 185 High Court (General Division) 5 July 2023 HC/OA 189/2023 ( HC/RA 77/2023 ) 20 min read

5 cases cited (4 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Appeal allowed

I allowed the appeal and ordered that OA 189 be stayed pursuant to s 6 of the IAA.

Source: [2023] SGHC 185, High Court (General Division), decided 5 July 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	5 July 2023
Judge	Chua Lee Ming
Charges / claim	Arbitration
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Providence Law Asia LLC, Resource Law LLC, Anand Shankar Tiwari s/o Sivakant Tiwari, Aw Hon Wei Adrian, Veluri Hari, Vergis S Abraham, Zhuo Jiaxiang

Source: [2023] SGHC 185, High Court (General Division), decided 5 July 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Arbitration — Stay of court proceedings — Mandatory stay under International Arbitration Act

Practice Areas

Arbitration

Judges (1)

Chua Lee Ming Delivered

Counsel (7)

Providence Law Asia LLC Firm Resource Law LLC Firm Anand Shankar Tiwari s/o Sivakant Tiwari Counsel Defendant Aw Hon Wei Adrian Counsel Defendant Veluri Hari Counsel Claimant Vergis S Abraham Counsel Claimant Zhuo Jiaxiang Counsel Claimant

Parties (2)

DAY Claimant DAZ Defendant

Case Significance

DAY v DAZ [2023] SGHC 185 is a grounds of decision of Chua Lee Ming J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 5 July 2023 in Originating Application No 189 of 2023 (Registrar's Appeal No 77 of 2023). The case was an appeal by the defendant against the Assistant Registrar's decision dismissing its application to stay the proceedings in HC/OA 189/2023 in favour of arbitration, pursuant to s 6 of the International Arbitration Act (2020 Rev Ed) ("the IAA") or the court's inherent case management powers. The critical issue was whether the dispute fell within the scope of, or was carved out from, the arbitration agreement; the judge allowed the appeal and ordered that OA 189 be stayed pursuant to s 6 of the IAA. The dispute arose from a funding agreement ("the LFA") entered into on 28 October 2019.

[2023] SGHC 185 explained

DAY v DAZ ([2023] SGHC 185) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 5 July 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 185 about?

DAY v DAZ ([2023] SGHC 185) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Arbitration — Stay of court proceedings — Mandatory stay under International Arbitration Act”, 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 185 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.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC 185 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 71. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

DAY appealed against an Assistant Registrar's refusal to stay court proceedings under HC/OA 189 of 2023 in favour of arbitration, pursuant to section 6 of the International Arbitration Act, in a dispute arising from a litigation funding agreement between the parties, a related company and a parent company. The central question was whether the dispute over whether certain settlement terms were engaged fell within the arbitration agreement. The High Court held that the dispute fell within the arbitration clause, allowed the appeal and stayed the proceedings.

What was DAY v DAZ [2023] SGHC 185 about?

It was an appeal before Chua Lee Ming J, decided on 5 July 2023, by a defendant seeking a stay of HC/OA 189/2023 in favour of arbitration under s 6 of the International Arbitration Act, turning on whether the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

How did the court decide the stay in [2023] SGHC 185?

The judge allowed the appeal and ordered that OA 189 be stayed pursuant to s 6 of the International Arbitration Act, the dispute having arisen from a funding agreement entered into on 28 October 2019 between the claimant, the defendant and related companies.