The Singapore Court of Appeal overturns the High Court, finding that the phrase “arbitration in Shanghai” means that Shanghai was clearly intended as the seat of arbitration.
IA practitioners know the importance of the seat of arbitration, and its impact on the conduct of arbitration proceedings and any subsequent court applications to set aside and enforce. A brief recap.
The Singapore Court of Appeal emphasises the importance of the seat of arbitration and that prejudice need not be established to resist enforcement of an award arising out of a wrongly seated arbitration.
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
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
Morrison Foerster review the 1 July 2019 decision from the Singapore High Court in BNA …Continue Reading
Latham & Watkins review the English High Court’s decision in J (Lebanon) v. K (Kuwait) …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the Supreme Court of India’s decision in Union of India v …Continue Reading
Stephenson Harwood review the 2018 decision of the Singapore High Court in Sanum Investments Limited …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the English High Court’s decision in Atlas Power v National Transmission …Continue Reading
King & Wood Mallesons review China’s Belt and Road initiative pointing out important matters for …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the Taizhou Court Case from the PRC, where the Taizhou Intermediate People’s …Continue Reading
King & Wood Mallesons review two cases – Ye v Zeng  FCA 1192 and …Continue Reading