The Privy Council of England considers contract illegality and public policy as a ground to set aside an arbitration award, setting out the extent of permissible court intervention where illegality of contract has been determined by an arbitral tribunal.
The HK Court refuses to set aside an order enforcing a PRC award on the basis that it was contrary to public policy or that certain orders made by the tribunal were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement between the parties.
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 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 HK Court dismisses an application to set aside an arbitral award, rejecting claims that the agreement was a sham and that enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy. Edward Chin, Pupil Barrister, reviews the case.
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 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.
In the context of a pending set aside hearing, the Court considers and rejects an application for security costs, applying the tests in Soleh Boneh International Ltd.
In a serious and unusual case, the English High Court refuses to enforce an unchallenged arbitral on the basis that to do so would not be in the interests of justice, demonstrating that s.66 is not a simple rubber-stamping exercise.
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.
A US court finds that a final judgment setting aside an award at the seat is generally conclusive, that the public policy exception is narrow and infrequently met, thereby refusing to enforce an award set aside in Nigeria.
The English High Court enforces a USD$9b award against Nigeria finding that the seat of arbitration was England and that there were no public policy reasons to refuse enforcement.Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review a Malaysian decision where a contractor unsuccessfully sought to set aside an award on the basis that the underlying contract was illegal and hence in breach of Malaysia’s public policy.Continue Reading
Khaitan & Co review the Indian High Court’s decision in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co …Continue Reading
Khaitan & Co review the Indian Courts’ interpretation of the term “fundamental policy of Indian …Continue Reading
Corrs Chambers Westgarth review the Singapore High Court’s 2019 decision in BVU v BVX  …Continue Reading
Parties regularly seek to set aside or resist enforcement of arbitration awards on the basis …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the 2018 decision of the Hong Kong High Court in Z …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the 2018 decision of the Hong Kong High Court in Paloma …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews recent judgments from the Indian courts which offer important guidance on …Continue Reading
Latham & Watkins review the English High Court’s decision in The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the Taizhou Court Case from the PRC, where the Taizhou Intermediate People’s …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the Hong Kong High Court’s decision in A v B  HKCFI …Continue Reading