The Privy Council of England considers contract illegality and public policy as a ground to set aside an arbitration award, setting out the extent of permissible court intervention where illegality of contract has been determined by an arbitral tribunal.
The HK Court refuses to set aside an order enforcing a PRC award on the basis that it was contrary to public policy or that certain orders made by the tribunal were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties.
A range of cases from the region in this newsletter, highlighting that while the set aside remedy is relatively rare, courts will not hesitate to set aside an award where the award debtor can clearly demonstrate a statutory ground and the court considers the set aside justified.
Tanner De Witt, one of Arbitrium’s proud sponsors, provides an update of common issues arising in financial arbitration proceedings, dealing with asymmetric arbitration clauses, multiple contracts incorporating multiple arbitration agreements and arbitrating against non-parties.
The Singapore Court of Appeal finds no basis to set aside an award on the grounds of excess of jurisdiction and/or breach of natural justice, and refuses to adopt the Hong Kong position of an award of indemnity costs against the unsuccessful party.
An Australian court finds that an arbitration clause providing that “disputes or differences arising between the Parties” merited a liberal construction, and encompassed claims for relief based on estoppel by convention or statutory unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.