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 Singapore High Court deals with a tribunal’s decision to deny a party a right to respond to new arguments introduced at the very end of the arbitral proceedings, deciding to set aside part of the award.
The Singapore Court of Appeal deals with the issue of whether a tribunal has the power to convene a hearing only for oral submissions in circumstances where a party requests a hearing to submit oral evidence.
The High Court of Singapore refuses to set aside an award on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction or by reason of a breach of natural justice and reviews the applicable legal principles under Article 34 of the Model Law.
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.
The Singapore Court of Appeal declines to set aside an award on the grounds of breach of natural justice in proceedings arising out of the termination of a construction contract.
The Privy Council (on appeal from Mauritius) upholds a decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius which refused to set aside an arbitral award on the basis of alleged breaches of natural justice and public policy.
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 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.
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.
Khaitan & Co review the Indian High Court’s decision in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the mid-May 2019 decision in P v D and others  EWHC …Continue Reading
Linklaters review of the Singapore High Court’s 2018 decision in China Machine New Energy Corp …Continue Reading