The HK Court confirms that an obligation to negotiate prior to commencement of arbitration proceedings goes to the admissibility of a claim, not to the jurisdiction of the tribunal.
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 Court sets aside an award on the basis that the party against whom an award had been rendered was not the party to the arbitration agreement.
Swiss Court finds that while a subcontractor was demonstrably involved in the performance of a main contract, it was insufficient to constitute implied consent to be bound by the arbitration agreement.
The English High Court deals with an application to set aside an award under s.67 of the Act on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties.
The Irish High Court provides a useful summary of the authorities dealing with a Court’s de novo review under Art.16(3) of the Model Law following a decision on jurisdiction by a tribunal.
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.
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.
The Singapore court clarifies the applicable time limits under Art.34(3) Model Law and rejects a broad range of natural justice objections as disguised appeals on the merits.
The HK Court confirms an earlier decision holding that there is no provision in the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards that the limitation period should not run while a successful party seeks to enforce an award in China.
The High Court deals with an argument that a partial award constitutes a negative jurisdiction decision and various arguments that the award should be set aside under Article 34(2) of the Model Law.
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.
A cross-border update of judgments dealing with challenges to arbitration awards, dealing with decisions from the courts of Hong Kong, Singapore and England.
Enforcement of SIAC awards challenged on a number of grounds, including jurisdiction and breach of natural justice, rejected by the Delhi High Court who orders the judgment debtor to deposit the underlying sum.
The Singapore High Court dismisses an application to set aside an arbitration award under A.34 of the Model Law, finding that the tribunal had jurisdiction and that its composition was in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
Khaitan & Co review the Supreme Court of India’s decision in Brahmani River Pallets, where the Court held that the designation of ‘venue’ conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the High Court to supervise the arbitration.Continue Reading
CMS Holborn Asia review the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd …Continue Reading
Morrison Foerster review the 1 July 2019 decision from the Singapore High Court in BNA …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the 2019 decision from the English Commercial Court in GA-Hyun Chung …Continue Reading
Stephenson Harwood provides an outline of the 2019 English Court of Appeal decision in BNP …Continue Reading
Stephenson Harwood provides a review of the decision in English Commercial Court in Tugushev v …Continue Reading
Practitioners regularly encounter time bar and limitations issues when seeking to enforce or resist enforcement …Continue Reading
Latham & Watkins review the English High Court’s 2018 decision in Sonact Group Limited v Premuda …Continue Reading
Linklaters review the 2018 decision in Marty Ltd v Hualon Corp (Malaysia)  SGCA 63, …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie analyse the April 2018 decision from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal …Continue Reading
Stephenson Harwood review the Singapore High Court’s decision in Sinolanka Hotels & Spa (Private) Limited …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review a decision dated 7 May 2018, where the Delhi High Court …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the English High Court’s decision in Atlas Power v National Transmission …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis lead the team representing First Media in the hearings before the Hong Kong …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the Singapore High Court’s decision in Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the 2 March 2018 decision of the English High Court in …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the decision in A v B  EWHC 3417 (Comm) (available …Continue Reading
In November 2017, the Hong Kong High Court delivered its decision in Neo Intelligence Holdings …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the English Court’s 2017 decision in Silver Dry Bulk Company Limited …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the December 2016 decision of the Hong Kong High Court in …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the decision of the Hong Kong High Court in Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited …Continue Reading