This month, Arbitrium contains a host of articles from Hong Kong, Singapore and England, including an important decision from the English Court of Appeal clarifying an issue that has vexed courts for some time – the relative weight to be given to the law of the seat and the law of the main contract, where they differ, in determining the proper law of the arbitration agreement.
The English High Court dismissed a serious irregularity challenge under s.68 of the Act, reviewing the applicable legal principles, emphasising that s.68 should not be used to attack an arbitrator’s findings of fact and evaluation of evidence.
The LCIA has updated its rules, designed to “make the arbitral and mediation processes even more streamlined and clear for arbitrators, mediators and parties alike.” The Rules take effect on 1st October 2020.
The High Court of Singapore refuses to set aside an award on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction or by reason of a breach of natural justice and reviews the applicable legal principles under Article 34 of the Model Law.
In considering a challenge to a domestic international award arising out of the sale and purchase of vessels, the Singapore High Court reviews the applicable principles of breach of natural justice and public policy.
Appeals under s.69 of the English Arbitration Act rarely succeed, but in a recent case, the English Court allowed an appeal, helpfully setting out the “guiding principles of fundamental importance” when considering s.69 applications.
In an important decision the English Court of Appeal clarifies an issue that has vexed courts for some time – the relative weight to be given to the law of the seat and the law of the main contract, where they differ, in determining the proper law of the arbitration agreement.
The HK High Court grants a Hadkinsons order and stays proceedings to set aside orders enforcing CIETAC awards (pending set aside proceedings in the PRC) on condition that the respondents pay 40% of the award sums into court.
The English High Court continues an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from acting as experts by reason of the defendants having acted for the claimant in a separate arbitration relating to the same project.
The interplay between arbitration and winding up proceedings continues to attract judicial attention, with a recent decision from Singapore’s highest court affirming the prima facie test, meaning that a debtor need only show that there is a dispute subject to an arbitration agreement.