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