What happens when the debt giving rise for the winding-up petition also falls under the arbitration clause?

As dispute resolution practitioners, regardless of which area of law, I would dare wager that the phrase "it is trite law" will be utilised by every practitioners when appearing before the courts. However, when claiming an issue of law to be trite, to what extent we as officers of the court cite authorities to prove our point?

Allow me to illustrate. For those that are familiar with company law, it is trite that courts are generally slow to interfere in management issues regulating affairs of companies. When handling a brief that involves this principle, do I proceed to cite a number of cases to support this when I submit before the learned judge? Or should I cite no authorities at all as being trite, I should be comfortable to know that the Bench will be aware of such a position in law.

I have some interesting conversations on this over the past few years. Some are of the view that one should cite a number of authorities to prove one's point that it is trite. Others are of the view that authorities need not be cited for the sole reasons it is trite in the first place.

I believe both approach are not wrong and ultimately is a matter of personal style. Also, knowing who are you appearing before may be a deciding factor in how to approach advocating a position of law that is trite. What is trite to a commercial law practitioner may not necessarily be trite to an insurance law practitioner. What do you all think? I look to reading your views after this 😊