In this month’s Newsletter, Arbitrium features an update in relation to the legal impact of the coronavirus outbreak, bringing together posts from a range of law firms at the forefront of advising commercial parties, and a range of judgments dealing with set-aside applications from England, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Like last month, the aim of this post is to bring together a number of recent articles published by law firms at the forefront of advising commercial parties in dealing with the pandemic. It is my hope that an update next month will not be necessary.
The English CA overturns the first instance court, holding that English Courts do have jurisdiction under s.44(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 to grant orders for taking evidence from non-party witnesses in aid of foreign arbitrations.
In the latest decision from the HK High Court to consider the interplay between arbitration and winding-up proceedings, Lavesh Kirpalani, Counsel at Prince’s Chambers, reviews the decision in Re Asia Master Logistics, where he appeared for the successful petitioner.
The SICC dismisses an application to set aside an award, finding that the tribunal was justified in granting the cumulative relief that it did, and that there was no apparent bias on the part of an arbitrator who made a belated disclosure about being engaged as co-counsel with the defendant’s legal representative.
The HK Court dismisses an application to set aside an arbitral award, rejecting claims that the agreement was a sham and that enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy. Edward Chin, Pupil Barrister, reviews the case.
The HK Court denies an application for a stay of proceedings to arbitration in a case concerning bills of lading. Nick Luxton, Counsel, appeared for the successful Plaintiff, and provides a review of the decision.
This month, Arbitrium features a post published in relation to the legal impact of the coronavirus outbreak, highlighting the key issues for businesses. Further, an interesting decision from the Malaysian High Court which considered the test for an application to subpoena a witness to produce documents for the purpose of an arbitration and give evidence in arbitration proceedings and a range of case notes from England in relation to ss. 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act.