In our previous post, we discussed the Malaysian position in Kebabangan which decided that a failure or delay by a respondent to pay its portion of the arbitration security deposit amounted to a repudiatory breach that rendered the arbitration agreement inoperative. On the same topic, we will now explore the Singapore position in Heartronics Corporation v EPI Life Pte Ltd and others [2017] SGHCR 17 (“Heartronics”) which also referred to the English position in BDMS Ltd v Rafael Advanced Defence System [2014] All ER (D) 244 (“BDMS”). Continue reading “How to Neuter an Arbitration Clause – Part 2: Positions in Singapore & UK”