No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
EXPLAINING ASSIGNMENTS OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 March 2021
Abstract
The case law and literature to date have struggled to locate the rationale for the assignability of arbitration agreements. While different justifications have been proffered, each of them rests on questionable premises. This has given rise to a host of uncertainties over the rules which apply in practice. This paper proposes that a satisfactory rationale can be found in the “acceptance principle”. This principle indicates, first, that arbitration agreements which are not actual burdens can be assigned, and second, that the assignability of arbitration agreements is grounded in the assignee's acceptance in the form of non-disclaimer of the assignment. Bringing the acceptance principle to the fore not only provides a theoretically sound justification for the assignability of arbitration agreements; it also suggests how the practical uncertainties in this area of law can be resolved satisfactorily.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2021
Footnotes
*
Associate Professor in Law, University of Melbourne.
I thank Ed Taylor for drawing my attention to this topic, and Michael Bryan, Tony Guest, Lusina Ho, Lionel Smith and Chee Ho Tham for their comments on an earlier draft. I am also grateful to Priyanka Banerjee and Robin Gardner at the MLS Academic Research Service for research assistance.
References
1 Jagusch, S. and Sinclair, A.C., “The Impact of Third Parties on International Arbitration: Issues of Assignment” in Mistelis, L.A. and Lew, J.D.M. (eds.), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration (Alphen aan den Rijn 2006)Google Scholar, [15-6].
2 See generally Garnuszek, A., “The Law Applicable to the Contractual Assignment of an Arbitration Agreement” (2016) 82 Arbitration 348Google Scholar.
3 See e.g. Aspell v Seymour [1929] W.N. 152 (C.A.); Shayler v Woolf [1946] 1 Ch. 320; Rumput (Panama) S.A. v Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (hereafter “The Leage”) [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259 (Q.B.); Court Line v Aktiebolaget Gotaverken AB (hereafter “The Halcyon the Great”) [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283 (Q.B.); Socony Mobil Oil Co. Inc. v The West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (London) Ltd. (hereafter “The Padre Island”) [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 408 (Q.B.); Kaukomarkkinat O/Y v Elbe Transport-Union GmbH (hereafter “The Kelo”) [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 85 (Q.B.); Montedipe SpA v JTP-RO Jugotanker (hereafter “The Jordan Nicolov”) [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.). Cf. Cottage Club Estates Inc. v Woodside Estates Co. (Amersham) Ltd. [1928] 2 K.B. 463; The London Steamship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd. v Bombay Trading Co. Ltd. (hereafter “The Felicie”) [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 21, 25 (Q.B.).
4 Throughout this paper, the “obligor” is the assignor's contractual counterparty.
5 The Halcyon the Great [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283, 289 (Q.B.); The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 19 (Q.B.).
6 Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Euroasia) Ltd. v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2005] EWHC 455 (Comm.), at [25]. See also The Leage [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259, 261–62 (Q.B.), where the Act's predecessor, the Arbitration Act 1975, was in issue.
7 Section 82(2).
8 The Kelo [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 85, 89 (Q.B.); Baytur S.A. v Finagro Holdings S.A. [1992] 1 Q.B. 610.
9 See generally Liew, Y.K., Guest on the Law of Assignment (London 2018)Google Scholar, ch. 4.
10 In the arbitration context, see e.g. The Kelo [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 85 (Q.B.); in the litigation context, see e.g. Trendtex Trading Corp. v Credit Suisse [1982] A.C. 679 (H.L.).
11 Lew, J.D.M., Mistelis, L.A. and Kröll, S.M., Comparative International Commercial Arbitration (London 2003)Google Scholar, [7-53].
12 Shayler v Woolf [1946] 1 Ch. 320, 322.
13 Lew, Mistelis and Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, [7-55]; Jagusch and Sinclair, “The Impact of Third Parties on International Arbitration”, [15-14].
14 Yeandle v Wynn Realisations Ltd. (1995) 47 Con. L.R. 1, 11 (C.A.); Herkules Piling Ltd. v Tilbury Construction Ltd. (1992) 32 Con. L.R. 112 (Q.B.).
15 Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd. [1902] 2 K.B. 660, 668; Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. [1940] A.C. 1014, 1019; Davies v Collins [1945] 1 All E.R. 247, 249 (C.A.); Southway Group Ltd. v Wolff (1991) 57 B.L.R. 33, 52; Linden Gardens Trust Ltd. v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd. [1994] 1 A.C. 85, 103 (H.L.); Don King Productions Inc. v Warren [2000] Ch. 291.
16 D. Girsberger, “The Law Applicable to the Assignment of Claims Subject to an Arbitration Agreement” in F. Ferrari and S. Kröll (eds.), Conflict of Laws in International Commercial Arbitration (Munich 2010), 385 (footnote omitted).
17 The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.).
18 Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlev von Appen GmbH v Voest Alpine Intertrading GmbH (hereafter “The Jay Bola”) [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279, 286 (C.A.).
19 Ibid.
20 R. Zakrzewski, Remedies Reclassified (Oxford 2005).
21 Ibid., at ch. 2.
22 Ibid., at 17. See e.g. W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1st ed., vol. 3 (Oxford 1768), 396; P. Birks, “Three Kinds of Objection to Discretionary Remedialism” (2000) 29 U.W.A.L.R. 1, 5; and the cases and commentators cited in Zakrzewski, Remedies Reclassified, 17, 44.
23 Zakrzewski, Remedies Reclassified, 44.
24 Ibid., at ch. 4.
25 Ibid., at ch. 6, as refined in Y.K. Liew, “Reanalysing Institutional and Remedial Constructive Trusts” [2016] C.L.J. 528, 534–37, and Y.K. Liew, Rationalising Constructive Trusts (London 2017), 18–23.
26 The Jay Bola [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279, 286 (C.A.) (emphasis added).
27 Rals International Pte Ltd. v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA [2016] SGCA 53, at [55]. In the judgment, this idea was presented as closely linked to the “conditional benefit” analysis, discussed below.
28 Heyman v Darwins Ltd. [1942] A.C. 356, 373 (H.L.).
29 Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA v Rals International Pte Ltd. [2015] SGHC 264, at [102].
30 See, to the same effect, Privity of Contract: Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties (Law Com. No. 242), [14.18]: “arbitration … must be seen as both conferring rights and imposing duties and do not lend themselves to a splitting of the benefit and the burden.”
31 Tito v Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106, 290.
32 See generally C.J. Davis, “The Principle of Benefit and Burden” [1998] C.L.J. 522.
33 See e.g. The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.); Phoenix Finance Ltd. v Federation Internationale De L'Automobile [2002] EWHC 1028 (Ch), at [82]; Jones v Link Financial Ltd. [2012] EWHC 2402 (Q.B.), [2013] 1 W.L.R. 693, at [32]; Hatzl v XL Insurance Co. Ltd. [2009] EWCA Civ 223, at [52], [66]; Through Transport v New India Assurance [2005] EWHC 455 (Comm), at [22]. Cf. Rals v Cassa di Risparmio [2016] SGCA 53, at [54].
34 The Jay Bola [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279, 291 (C.A.).
35 Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 A.C. 310.
36 Davies v Jones [2009] EWCA Civ 1164, [2009] 2 WLR 1286, at [27].
37 Thus, “It is, I think, quite clear that neither at law nor in equity could the burden of a contract be shifted off the shoulders of a contractor on to those of another without the consent of the contractee”: Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) [1902] 2 K.B. 660, 668 (emphasis added). See also Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge Disposals [1994] 1 A.C. 85, 103 (H.L.).
38 See main text from note 31 above.
39 Further on in the judgment, Megarry V.C. also noted that the conditional benefit principle imposes an “obligatory” burden, in the sense that the burden binds immediately when the benefit is transferred (Tito v Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106, 290). This was distinguished from certain cases falling within the “pure principle of benefit and burden”, where “optional burdens” are imposed: in those cases, the transferee has the option of refusing the benefit which would also avoid the burden (ibid., at 290–91). The “pure principle” was decisively rejected in Rhone v Stephens [1994] 2 A.C. 310.
40 Ostensibly, because there are problems with this explanation, as discussed earlier.
41 See e.g. Firma C-Trade S.A. v Newcastle Protection and Indemnity Association (hereafter “The Fanti”) [1991] 2 A.C. 1, 33 (H.L.); Phoenix Finance v Federation Internationale De L'Automobile [2002] EWHC 1028 (Ch), at [82]; Charterers’ Mutual Assurance Association v British and Foreign [1997] I.L.Pr. 838, at [44] (Q.B. Comm.).
42 See e.g. The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.); Jones v Link Financial [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB), at [32]; Aspen Underwriting Ltd. v Credit Europe Bank NV [2020] UKSC 11, at [27].
43 The Jay Bola [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279, 286, 291 (C.A.); Aline Tramp S.A. v Jordan International Insurance Company [2016] EWHC 1317 (Comm), at [40]. See also G.J. Tolhurst, The Assignment of Contractual Rights, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2016), [6.177].
44 At [34] (emphasis added).
45 Through Transport v New India Assurance [2005] EWHC 455 (Comm), at [22] (emphases added). See also The Jay Bola [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279, 291 (C.A.), and Aspen Underwriting v Credit Europe Bank [2020] UKSC 11, at [27], where, respectively, Scott V.C. and Lord Hodge erroneously attribute the enforcement approach to Tito v Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106.
46 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 1) [1996] Q.B. 292, 307–08.
47 This is an adaptation of one of the ways in which the decision in Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) Ltd. [1903] A.C. 414 (H.L.) can be understood: see the discussion in Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [9–08].
48 Mangles v Dixon (1852) 10 E.R. 278, 290.
49 Cockell v Taylor (1852) 51 E.R. 475, 481. See also Coles v Jones and Coles (1715) 23 E.R. 1048; Ord v White (1840) 49 E.R. 140; Smith v Parkes (1852) 51 E.R. 720; Wakefield and Barnsley Banking Co. v Normanton Local Board (1881) 44 L.T. 697, 700; Roxburghe v Cox (1881) 17 Ch.D. 520, 526; Dixon v Winch [1900] 1 Ch. 736, 742; Turner v Smith [1901] 1 Ch. 213, 219; Edward Nelson & Co. Ltd. v Faber & Co. [1903] 2 K.B. 367, 375.
50 The Leage [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259, 262 (Q.B.).
51 STX Pan Ocean v Woori Bank [2012] EWHC 981 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 99, at [9]. See also discussion in C. Ambrose, “When Can a Third Party Enforce an Arbitration Clause?” [2001] Journal of Business Law 415, 421–22.
52 Similarly, Cassa di Risparmio v Rals International [2015] SGHC 264, at [106], and Jagusch and Sinclair, “The Impact of Third Parties on International Arbitration”, [15]–[43] treats The Jay Bola [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279 (C.A.), as reflecting the “subject to equities” principle.
53 To paraphrase Megarry V.C. in Tito v Waddell (No. 2) [1977] Ch. 106, 290.
54 Phillips v Phillips (1861) 45 E.R. 1164, 1166. See also M. Smith and N. Leslie, The Law of Assignment, 3rd ed. (Oxford 2018), [26.45]; Tolhurst, The Assignment of Contractual Rights, [1.03].
55 D. Girsberger and C. Hausmaninger, “Assignment of Rights and Agreement to Arbitrate” (1992) 8 Arb.Intl. 121, 142. It is also “an escape from judicial appeals”: N. Andrews, Arbitration and Contract Law (Switzerland 2016), [1.06].
56 Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v West Bromwich Building Society (No. 1) [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896, 915 (H.L.).
57 Snell's Equity, 33rd ed. (London 2016), [2-006]. See also Smith and Leslie, The Law of Assignment, [2.98], [2.104]–[2.105].
58 Prosser v Edmonds (1835) 160 E.R. 196 (K.B.); Fitzroy v Cave [1905] 2 K.B. 364, 371.
59 Dickinson v Burrell (1866) L.R. 1 Eq. 337; Seear v Lawson (1880) 15 Ch.D. 426; Gross v Lewis Hillman Ltd. [1970] 1 Ch. 445, 460.
60 See e.g. Aspell v Seymour [1929] W.N. 152 (C.A.); Shayler v Woolf [1946] 1 Ch. 320; The Leage [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259 (Q.B.); The Halcyon the Great [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283 (Q.B.); The Padre Island [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 408 (Q.B.); The Kelo [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 85 (Q.B.); The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.). Cf. Cottage Club Estates v Woodside Estates [1928] 2 K.B. 463; The Felicie [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 21, 25 (Q.B.).
61 Smith and Leslie, The Law of Assignment, [26.37].
62 As was the case in The Jay Bola [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279 (C.A.): see, in particular, statements at 286.
63 This being the definition of a defence: see J. Goudkamp, Tort Law Defences (Oxford 2013).
64 See also Privity of Contract, [14.17]: “it is clear law that an arbitration agreement (or a jurisdiction agreement) cannot be regarded as a defence to an action … Rather the agreement is simply enforceable by and against the parties to it through a stay of litigation.”
65 C.H. Tham, Understanding the Law of Assignment (Cambridge 2019).
66 Ibid., at 104, note 110.
67 Ibid., at 345.
68 Ibid., at 360.
69 C.J. Davis, “The Principle of Benefit and Burden” [1998] C.L.J. 522.
See e.g. The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.); Phoenix Finance v Federation Internationale De L'Automobile [2002] EWHC 1028 (Ch), at [82]; Jones v Link Financial [2012] EWHC 2402 (Q.B.), [2013] 1 W.L.R. 693, at [32]; Hatzl v XL Insurance [2009] EWCA Civ 223, at [52], [66]; Through Transport v New India Assurance [2005] EWHC 455 (Comm), at [22]. Cf. Rals v Cassa di Risparmio [2016] SGCA 53, at [54].
70 See cases cited in Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [9-08].
71 The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.).
72 Ibid. See also NBP Developments v Buildko & Sons Ltd. (1992) 8 Constitutional. L.J. 377; BXH v BXI [2020] SGCA 28, at [74]–[75].
73 See e.g. Standing v Bowring (1885) 31 Ch.D. 282, 290; Re Gulbenkian's Settlements (No 2) [1970] A.C. 508, 518 (H.L.).
74 See Y.K. Liew and C. Mitchell, “The Creation of Express Trusts” (2017) 11 J.Eq. 133, 152ff.
75 See e.g. Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [3-13]; Smith and Leslie, The Law of Assignment, [13.86].
76 This is why if a trustee wrongfully pays trust money into an overdrawn account there is no fund over which any proprietary claim can operate: Moriarty v Atkinson [2008] EWCA Civ 1604, at [15].
77 Jervis v Wolferstan (1874) L.R. 18 Eq. 18, 26. See also Whittaker v Kershaw (No 2) (1890) 45 Ch.D. 320, 326, where Cotton L.J. used the terminology of a “shadowy” liability.
78 Thompson v Leach (1690) 86 E.R. 391, 396 (K.B.).
79 Townson v Tickell (1819) 106 E.R. 575, 577. See also Hardoon v Belilios [1901] A.C. 118, 123 (P.C.); JW Broomhead (Vic) Pty Ltd. v JW Broomhead Pty Ltd. [1985] V.R. 891, 931 (V.S.C.); N. Crago, “Principles of Disclaimer of Gifts” (1999) 28 U.W.A.L.R. 65, 71; J. Hill, “The Role of the Donee's Consent in the Law of Gift” (2001) 117 L.Q.R. 127, 142.
80 Naas v National Westminster Bank [1940] A.C. 366, 400.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 JW Broomhead (Vic) v JW Broomhead [1985] V.R. 891, 931 (V.S.C.).
84 Re Paradise Motor Co. Ltd. [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1125, 1143.
85 Mallott v Wilson [1903] 2 Ch. 494, 501.
86 Bence v Gilpin (1868) L.R. 3 Exch. 76, 81.
87 Tolhurst v Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (1900) [1902] 2 K.B. 660, 668; Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries [1940] A.C. 1014, 1019; Davies v Collins [1945] 1 All E.R. 247, 249 (C.A.); Southway Group v Wolff (1991) 57 B.L.R. 33, 52; Linden Gardens Trust v Lenesta Sludge Disposals [1994] 1 A.C. 85, 103 (H.L.); Don King Productions v Warren [2000] Ch. 291.
88 The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.).
89 A “cause of action” entails “a factual situation the existence of which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person”: Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 Q.B. 232, 243.
90 The Kelo [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 85, 89 (Q.B.); Baytur v Finagro Holdings [1992] 1 Q.B. 610.
91 The Halcyon the Great [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283 (Q.B.).
92 Jones v Link Financial [2012] EWHC 2402 (Q.B.).
93 See e.g. The Halcyon the Great [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283, 289 (Q.B.); The Felicie [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 21, 26; The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.); Baytur v Finagro Holdings [1992] 1 Q.B. 610, 619; NBP v Buildko & Sons (1992) 8 Const L.J. 377; A v B [2016] EWHC 3003 (Comm), [2017] 1 W.L.R. 2030, at [48].
94 J.C. Landrove, Assignment and Arbitration: A Comparative Study (Zurich 2009), 26. It also precludes access to legal aid: Ambrose, “When Can a Third Party Enforce an Arbitration Clause?”, 417.
95 See e.g. Shayler v Woolf [1946] 1 Ch. 320; STX v Woori Bank [2012] EWHC 981 (Comm), [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 99; Rals v Cassa di Risparmio [2016] SGCA 53.
96 Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 1) [1996] Q.B. 292, 307–08.
97 See e.g. The Fanti [1991] 2 A.C. 1 (H.L.).
98 Jones v Link Financial [2012] EWHC 2402.
99 Baytur v Finagro Holdings [1992] 1 Q.B. 610, 619.
100 Ibid.
101 See Young v Kitchin (1878) 3 Ex.D. 127, discussed in Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [7-32].
102 See e.g. The Felicie [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 21, 26; The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 19 (Q.B.); Baytur v Finagro Holdings [1992] 1 Q.B. 610, 619.
103 Baytur v Finagro Holdings [1992] 1 Q.B. 610, 619.
104 See, in relation to costs, The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 19 (Q.B.). Cf. The Felicie [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 21, 26, where this is explained on the basis that those costs “are personal to the parties and cannot properly be the subject of a transfer”.
105 Jagusch and Sinclair, “The Impact of Third Parties on International Arbitration”, [15-22].
106 The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 19 (Q.B.).
107 See e.g. Tate v Leithead (1854) 69 E.R. 279; Bill v Cureton (1835) 39 E.R. 1036; Standing (1885) 31 Ch.D. 282, 288, 290; Naas [1940] A.C. 366, 375; Grey v Australian Motorists & General Insurance Co. Pty Ltd. [1976] 1 N.S.W.L.R. 669, 673. Cf. Alexander v Steinhardt, Walker & Co. [1903] 2 K.B. 208, which, however, is capable of being explained on other grounds: see Smith and Leslie, The Law of Assignment, [13.28].
108 See main text to note 97 above.
109 Cf. Cassa di Risparmio v Rals International [2015] SGHC 264, at [121].
110 See Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [2-19], [3-50].
111 See BXH v BXI [2019] SGHC 141, at [139].
112 As occurred in Herkules Piling v Tilbury Construction (1992) 32 Con. L.R. 112 (Q.B.).
113 See Chitty on Contracts, 32nd ed., vol. 1 (London 2015), [13-041]; IRC v Electrical and Musical Industries Ltd. [1949] 1 All E.R. 120, 126.
114 Re Gillott's Settlement [1934] 1 Ch. 97, 111.
115 Byrnes v Kendle [2011] HCA 26, at [55]–[56] (trusts). Cf. Girsberger and Hausmaninger, “Assignment of Rights”, 144, who suggest that assignments ought to require the assignee's written consent in order to inform the assignee “about the extent of the commitment to arbitrate”. This does not represent English law.
116 See e.g. A. Lista, “International Commercial Contracts, Bills of Lading, and Third Parties: In Search of a New Legal Paradigm for Extending the Effects of Arbitration Agreements to Non-signatories” [2019] J.B.L. 21, 21; J.M. Hosking, “The Third Party Non-signatory's Ability to Compel International Commercial Arbitration: Doing Justice without Destroying Consent” (2004) 4 Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 469, 472; B. Hanotiau, “Problems Raised by Complex Arbitrations Involving Multiple Contracts-parties-issues: An Analysis” (2001) 18 Journal of International Arbitration 253, 255.
117 Girsberger, “Law Applicable to the Assignment of Claims”, 381. See also Jagusch and Sinclair, “The Impact of Third Parties on International Arbitration”, [15-4].
118 Harbour Assurance Co. (UK) Ltd. v Kansa General International Insurance Co. Ltd. [1992] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 81, 83.
119 See e.g. The Felicie [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 21, 26; Lista, “International Commercial Contracts”, 24–25; BXH v BXI [2019] SGHC 141, at [136]; Girsberger and Hausmaninger, “Assignment of Rights”, 136–39.
120 The Jay Bola [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 279, 291 (C.A.).
121 Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd. v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd. [2011] UKSC 38, [2012] 1 A.C. 383, at [167].
122 See e.g. Sir Holdsworth, W., “The History of the Treatment of Choses in Action by the Common Law” (1920) 33 Harv.L.Rev. 997CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 1016ff; Macleod, H.D., Principles of Economical Philosophy, vol. 1 (London 1872), 481Google Scholar.
123 Cf. the suggestion in Smith and Leslie, The Law of Assignment, [21.21], that future assignees may always be bound where the main contract specifically provides for this. The freedom of a future assignee to disclaim an assignment cannot be curbed in such a manner.
124 West Tankers Inc. v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta (The Front Commor) [2005] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 257, at [33]. See also The Fanti [1991] 2 A.C. 1, 33 (H.L.).
125 Ibid.
126 Baytur v Finagro Holdings [1992] 1 Q.B. 610, 617–18.
127 Ibid., at 618. See also The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 18 (Q.B.).
128 See Section V(B)(1) above.
129 See Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [3-50].
130 See Herkules Piling v Tilbury Construction (1992) 32 Con. L.R. 112, 120 (Q.B.), and Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [3-50], for a detailed discussion.
131 This is not to say that the assignee automatically becomes party to the arbitration proceedings upon the equitable assignment: notice must be given to the tribunal and the assignee must submit to the tribunal's jurisdiction: see e.g. The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 18 (Q.B.); NBP v Buildko & Sons (1992) 8 Const.L.J. 377; Baytur v Finagro Holdings [1992] 1 Q.B. 610, 618; Charles M Willie & Co. (Shipping) Ltd. v Ocean Laser Shipping Ltd. (The Smaro) [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 225, 243 (Q.B.).
132 Herkules Piling v Tilbury Construction (1992) 32 Con. L.R. 112, 120 (Q.B.), relying on Warner Bros Records Inc. v Roll Green Ltd. [1976] Q.B. 430.
133 These are discussed in Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [3-14].
134 The Leage [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 259, 262 (Q.B.).
135 Sim Swee Joo Shipping Sdn Bhd v Shirlstar Container Transport Ltd. [1994] C.L.C. 188 (Q.B.).
136 BXH v BXI [2019] SGHC 141, at [177] (emphasis in original).
137 Jagusch and Sinclair, “The Impact of Third Parties on International Arbitration”, [15-22]. See also Hosking, “The Third Party Non-signatory's Ability”, 492.
138 The Halcyon the Great [1984] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 283, 289 (Q.B.).
139 The Jordan Nicolov [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 11, 15 (Q.B.).
140 NBP v Buildko & Sons (1992) 8 Const L.J. 377. See also BXH v BXI [2019] SGHC 141, at [137].
141 See Lew, Mistelis and Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, [7-55].
142 See e.g. ibid.; Girsberger and Hausmaninger, “Assignment of Rights”, 147.
143 If the obligor's consent is obtained then what we have is a novation and not an assignment: Linden Gardens v Lenesta Sludge Disposals [1994] 1 A.C. 85, 103 (H.L.); Alina Budana v The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 1980, at [68], [118]; Liew, Guest on the Law of Assignment, [1-56]–[1-58].
144 Yeandle v Wynn Realisations (1995) 47 Con. L.R. 1, 12 (C.A.).
145 Lew, Mistelis and Kröll, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, [7-53].