Insigma Technology Co. Ltd. v. Alstom Technology Ltd.

Alstom Technology Limited (Alstom) (defendant) and Insigma Technology Co., Ltd. (Insigma) (plaintiff) entered into a licensing agreement giving Insigma the right to use certain Alstom technology in China. The agreement contained an arbitration clause stating that disputes were to be resolved by arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) pursuant to the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in effect at the time of arbitration. A dispute arose between the parties regarding royalty payments. Alstom first initiated arbitration at the ICC. Insigma objected, arguing that the parties agreed to arbitrate at the SIAC under ICC rules. The SIAC created a tribunal to administer the arbitration pursuant to the ICC rules, including establishing functional bodies corresponding with the bodies required to carry out ICC procedures. The SIAC tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Insigma appealed to the high court, which affirmed the tribunal, and then appealed to the court of appeal. Insigma argued that the agreement was unclear because it was not possible for a non-ICC institution to administer the ICC rules. Insigma also argued that SIAC arbitration did not carry the reputation of quality associated with ICC arbitration for which Insigma had bargained, and that the tribunal effectively rewrote the parties’ agreement by substituting SIAC bodies for the corresponding ICC bodies.