Singapore High Court Decides That An Arbitration Clause Misnaming An Arbitration Institution Is Valid

In the case of Re Shanghai Xinan Screenwall Building & Decoration Co, Ltd [2022] SGHC 58, the Singapore High Court interpreted a potentially defective arbitration clause which referred disputes to a non-existent institution, the "China International Arbitration Center", as an agreement to submit disputes to CIETAC arbitration and therefore upheld an award issued by a CIETAC Tribunal.

Factual and procedural background

The dispute arose out of two construction contracts entered between Shanghai Xinan, a Chinese company, and Great Wall, a Singapore company. The arbitration clauses contained in the two construction contracts were identical and read as follows:

"Any dispute arising from or in relation to the contract shall be settled through negotiation. If negotiation fails, the dispute shall be submitted to China International Arbitration Center for arbitration in accordance with its arbitration rules in force at the time of submission."