The Privy Council (on appeal from Mauritius) upholds a decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius which refused to set aside an arbitral award on the basis of alleged breaches of natural justice and public policy.
The Singapore court clarifies the applicable time limits under Art.34(3) Model Law and rejects a broad range of natural justice objections as disguised appeals on the merits.
The High Court deals with an argument that a partial award constitutes a negative jurisdiction decision and various arguments that the award should be set aside under Article 34(2) of the Model Law.
Enforcement of SIAC awards challenged on a number of grounds, including jurisdiction and breach of natural justice, rejected by the Delhi High Court who orders the judgment debtor to deposit the underlying sum.
Khaitan & Co review the Indian High Court’s decision in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the mid-May 2019 decision in P v D and others  EWHC …Continue Reading
Linklaters review of the Singapore High Court’s 2018 decision in China Machine New Energy Corp …Continue Reading