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.
The Hong Kong Court refuses to grant an indemnity costs order following an anti-suit injunction, rejecting an argument that the general approach in arbitration cases to award indemnity costs should be extended against a person who was not a party to the arbitration agreement.
The English Court finds that a successful enforcement action did not entitle the Claimant to an award of costs as it failed to satisfy the requirements of full and frank disclosure.
The English Court finds that an arbitrator cannot consider WP communications when deciding costs issues but could take into account “impliedly without prejudice” communications created as part of an attempt at compromise.
King & Wood Mallesons review the Hong Kong High Court’s 2019 decision in Ng Yuk …Continue Reading
King & Wood Mallesons point out that there is no universal approach to costs awards …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review a January 2018 Hong Kong High Court decision where the Court …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the English Commercial Court’s 2017 decision in Oldham v. QBE Insurance …Continue Reading