The Singapore Court of Appeal confirms that the 3-month time limit for setting aside an award cannot be extended even in cases of fraud.
In a dispute arising out of a transfer agreement, the HK Court refused to extend time to apply to set aside an award, finding that the Applicants failed to give any explanation for their delay in making the application.
Notwithstanding the unprecedented delay in seeking to challenge the award, the English court finds that Nigeria established a prima facie case for fraudulent conduct, confirming that fairness ultimately outweighs considerations of extreme delay and finality to proceedings.
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.
The court in BXS held that the time for making an application to set aside under Article 34(3) could not be extended. One month later, in BXY, the SICC reaches the same conclusion in respect of Article 16(3) of the Model Law.
In an important decision, a Singapore court finds that the time to bring a setting aside application under Article 34(3) of the Model Law cannot be extended.Continue Reading
Latham & Watkins consider the English Court of Appeal’s 2018 decision in Haven Insurance Company …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie analyse the April 2018 decision from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis lead the team representing First Media in the hearings before the Hong Kong …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the English Commercial Court’s March 2018 decision, where the key issue …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s decision in the Astro v …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s decision in the Astro v Lippo …Continue Reading