Arbitration Regarding Breach Of Franchise Agreements In Singapore
1. Overview: Franchise Agreements and Arbitration in Singapore
Franchise agreements in Singapore typically govern:
Grant of franchise rights
Use of trademarks and intellectual property
Territorial exclusivity
Operational standards
Royalty and fee obligations
Termination and post-termination restrictions
Because franchising involves long-term commercial relationships and confidential know-how, arbitration is the preferred dispute resolution mechanism in Singapore.
Most franchise agreements include:
A Singapore seat of arbitration
Institutional rules (often SIAC Rules)
Governing law (usually Singapore law)
2. Legal Framework Governing Franchise Arbitration in Singapore
(a) Arbitration Act (AA) and International Arbitration Act (IAA)
Domestic franchises → Arbitration Act
Cross-border franchises → International Arbitration Act, incorporating the UNCITRAL Model Law
(b) Contract Law Principles
Singapore does not have a specific franchise statute. Franchise disputes are governed by:
Contract law
Equity
Intellectual property law
(c) Pro-Arbitration Policy
Singapore courts adopt a non-interventionist approach, enforcing arbitration clauses even in complex franchise disputes involving:
Fraud allegations
IP misuse
Termination disputes
3. Common Breaches of Franchise Agreements Leading to Arbitration
3.1 Breach by Franchisee
Non-payment of royalties
Operating outside approved territory
Failure to follow brand standards
Unauthorized sub-franchising
Misuse of trademarks post-termination
3.2 Breach by Franchisor
Failure to provide promised support/training
Wrongful termination
Granting competing franchises in exclusive territories
Misrepresentation during franchise negotiations
4. Arbitrability of Franchise Disputes in Singapore
Singapore recognizes franchise disputes as fully arbitrable, including:
Contractual breaches
IP licensing disputes
Misrepresentation (unless criminal fraud)
Damages and injunctive relief
Only limited matters are non-arbitrable (e.g., criminal liability), which rarely arise in franchise cases.
5. Role of Arbitral Tribunals in Franchise Disputes
Tribunals commonly decide:
Whether termination was valid
Whether exclusivity clauses were breached
Calculation of lost profits or royalties
Enforcement of non-compete and confidentiality clauses
Injunctive relief for trademark misuse
6. Enforcement of Franchise Arbitration Awards
Singapore arbitration awards:
Are enforceable as court judgments
International awards enforced under the New York Convention
Can only be challenged on very narrow grounds (jurisdiction, natural justice, public policy)
7. Key Singapore Case Laws Relevant to Franchise Arbitration
1. Maniach Pte Ltd v L Capital Jones Ltd
Issue: Breach of exclusivity and wrongful termination in a franchise-like arrangement
Held:
Tribunal had jurisdiction under the arbitration clause
Commercial franchise disputes are arbitrable
Courts will not re-examine merits of arbitral findings
Relevance: Confirms court restraint in franchise-type arbitration disputes.
2. Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd
Issue: Interpretation of commercial agreements in arbitration
Held:
Arbitrators have wide latitude in contractual interpretation
Errors of law are not grounds for setting aside awards
Relevance: Applied in franchise disputes where parties challenge arbitral interpretation of franchise obligations.
3. PT First Media TBK v Astro Nusantara International BV
Issue: Enforcement of arbitral awards beyond scope of arbitration agreement
Held:
Jurisdictional objections must be raised promptly
Failure to object constitutes waiver
Relevance: Franchisees often lose challenges if they participate in arbitration without early objections.
4. AKN v ALC
Issue: Alleged breach of natural justice in arbitration
Held:
High threshold to set aside awards
Minor procedural dissatisfaction insufficient
Relevance: Protects franchise arbitration awards from tactical challenges.
5. BLC and others v BLB and another
Issue: Breach of long-term commercial agreement and damages
Held:
Tribunals may award expectation damages and lost profits
Commercial certainty is paramount
Relevance: Supports damages claims in franchise breach arbitrations.
6. CBX v CBZ
Issue: Confidentiality and post-termination obligations
Held:
Confidentiality breaches post-termination are arbitrable
Injunctive relief may be granted by tribunals
Relevance: Highly relevant for franchise IP and know-how disputes.
8. Remedies Commonly Granted in Franchise Arbitrations
Monetary damages (lost profits, unpaid royalties)
Declaratory relief on validity of termination
Injunctions restraining trademark misuse
Enforcement of non-compete clauses
Costs and interest
9. Why Singapore Is a Preferred Seat for Franchise Arbitration
Strong judicial support for arbitration
Neutral and business-friendly courts
Efficient enforcement regime
World-class arbitral institutions (e.g., SIAC)
Predictable application of contract law
10. Conclusion
Arbitration concerning breach of franchise agreements in Singapore is:
Well-developed
Strongly supported by courts
Highly enforceable
Commercially pragmatic
Singapore case law consistently emphasizes party autonomy, finality of awards, and minimal court interference, making it one of the most reliable jurisdictions for resolving franchise disputes through arbitration.
RELATED Blog
comments