Hualon said it did not notice the arbitration clause in the Corporate Charter until February 2015, although it issued the Corporate Charter, including the arbitration clause in its request for omission. The Singapore Court of Appeal upwond an appeal of the High Court of Singapore`s decision in BMO against BMP  SGHC 127. The Singapore Court of Appeal found that the respondent had a negative breach of an arbitration agreement by opening legal proceedings and that this negative infringement had been accepted by the complainant. Therefore, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the dispute in the parallel arbitration proceedings. The Singapore Court of Appeal stated that it was not inclined to accept the English legal position, that negative intent was necessary for a party to have a negative breach of an arbitration agreement. This decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal gives rise to a series of practical considerations for parties involved in arbitration proceedings in Singapore. Objectively, this meant that all documents and transactions concluded by the Oung brothers, including the revised Charter containing the arbitration agreement, were null and void and non-binding. Hualon cannot, from its own point of view, insist on the possibility of relying on the arbitration agreement. In insistent observations, the Court stated that the mere opening of judicial proceedings by a party bound by an arbitration agreement would constitute a prima facie negative breach of the arbitration agreement. The Tribunal expressly questioned the long-standing English authority that (i) a party has refused an arbitration agreement only if it demonstrates manifestly negative intent; and (ii) to that analysis, that the mere opening of judicial proceedings would not in itself constitute a manifest intention to dismiss. .