Blog

Arbitrium Newsletter No. 11 – 1 September 2020

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.

Continue Reading

English High Court Reviews Principles Applicable to s.68 Serious Irregularity Challenges

英国法院对严重不规则原则的审查
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.

Continue Reading

Singapore Court Reviews Natural Justice and Public Policy Principles

新加坡法院审查自然正义与公共政策原则
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.

Continue Reading

English CA Provides Clear Guidance on Law Governing Arbitration Agreements

英国法院仲裁协议法律指导
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.

Continue Reading

Singapore CA Considers Arbitration and Insolvency Proceedings Interplay

新加坡审议仲裁和破产程序
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.

Continue Reading

SICC Refuses to Set Aside Award on Basis of Relief Granted or Apparent Bias

SICC拒绝就偏见作出裁决
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.

Continue Reading

Arbitrium Newsletter No. 9 – 4 March 2020

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.

Continue Reading

Arbitrium Newsletter No. 8 – 2 February 2020

This month, Arbitrium brings you a range of cases including, from Singapore, the Court of Appeal’s decision in BXS v BNY (overturning the High Court on the question of the right seat of arbitration), and a High Court decision dealing with the public policy ground of objection and time limits ; a raft of cases from England, including a CA decision concerning the governing law of an arbitration agreement and consideration of no oral modification provisions; and an interesting link to the “Disputes Clause Finder”, an online tool which provides users with tailored dispute resolution clauses.

Continue Reading

CA upholds English Law as Express Choice of Law & Considers Oral Modification provisions

英国法院维持英国法律作为仲裁协议的明确选择
The English CA considers the governing law of an arbitration agreement and whether the respondent became a party to the main agreement and/or the arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of No Oral Modification provisions in the main contract.

Continue Reading

Singapore HC Refuses to Set Aside Partial Award on Public Policy Grounds

新加坡以公共政策为由拒绝搁置仲裁裁决
The Singapore High Court rejects an argument that enforcement of a partial award could be resisted on the public policy ground, and also deals with time extension applications for setting aside and resisting enforcement of awards.

Continue Reading

UK Court Refuses Anti-Suit Injunction Against Non-Party

法院拒绝针对非当事人的反起诉令
The English Court considers an application for the continuance of an anti-suit injunction against a non-party to an arbitration agreement, based on the non-party pursuing proceedings in Russia which raised overlapping issues to those which were the subject of the arbitration.

Continue Reading

Sections 67 & 68 English Act Take Precedence Over Subsequent Arbitrations

英国法院授予反仲裁禁令
In an important decision, the English Court of Appeal grants an anti-arbitration injunction, saying it will do so only in “exceptional circumstances” and that parties cannot contract out of ss.67 & 68 of the English Act.

Continue Reading

HK Court Refuses to Set Aside Enforcement Order in Unusual Circumstances

香港法院拒绝搁置执行令
In an unusual case, a party filed evidence and sought to resist enforcement of an award but at the hearing advised that it would not advance any arguments to oppose the application to set aside the order granting leave to enforce, thereby leaving the party seeking enforcement to satisfy the court that order ought to be set aside.

Continue Reading