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 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 grants leave to enforce arbitration awards in circumstances where there were pending applications to set aside the same arbitral awards before the Singapore seat court.
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.
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.
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 Hong Kong High Court sets aside an order to enforce an arbitration award on the basis that the tribunal’s findings were beyond the scope of the arbitration clause and the parties submission to arbitration and that the respondent in the arbitration had not been given a reasonable opportunity to present its case and to meet the claimant’s case in the arbitration.
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.
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.
The Singapore CA finds that the Respondent’s set-aside application was filed more than three months after the award had been received by the parties; as the Court did not have any power to extend this time limit, the challenge was time- barred.
The Singapore CA dismisses an application to set aside an award on the ground of public policy because the tribunal held that they were prevented by the doctrine of res judicata from litigating on a component of their defence.
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 HK High Court explains the principles regarding the correction of awards under Article 33 of the Model Law, dismisses an application to set aside an award and allows the application to enforce the award.
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 SICC dismisses an application to set aside an award, finding that the tribunal was justified in granting the cumulative relief that it did, and that there was no apparent bias on the part of an arbitrator who made a belated disclosure about being engaged as co-counsel with the defendant’s legal representative.
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 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.
Section 68 of the English Act provides the basis for challenging an arbitration award where there has been a serious irregularity. This is a useful overview of the (only seven) successful challenges brought under the section, highlighting the difficulties in success.
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.
The English High Court deals with various interlocutory applications in a forthcoming challenge to an arbitration award, including payment of security and a stay of enforcement.
The Court refuses to set aside or remit an arbitration award arising out of a project in Macau, rejecting arguments that the employer was unable to present its case or that the tribunal failed to deal with all the issues.
The English Court refuses to set aside and remit an award stating that s.68 is concerned solely with due process and represents an exhaustive list of what constitutes “serious irregularity” under the Act.
A cross-border update of judgments dealing with challenges to arbitration awards, dealing with decisions from the courts of Hong Kong, Singapore and England.
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 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.
The HK Court dismisses an application for setting aside and remission of awards on the grounds of serious irregularity and alleged failure to present case, with a helpful restatement of the applicable legal principles.
The HK High Court sets aside an award remitted to the tribunal following an initial challenge, stating that the defects resulting in the remission had not been cured by the route taken by the Arbitrator.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
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
CMS Holborn Asia review the Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd …Continue Reading
Economic Laws Practice review the Delhi High Court’s 1 July 2019 decision in ONGC Petro …Continue Reading
Khaitan & Co review the Indian Courts’ interpretation of the term “fundamental policy of Indian …Continue Reading
The English Court rejects a challenge under s.68 of the English Act, and provides useful guidance on the test for determining whether a tribunal’s decision qualifies as an award for the purpose of a s.68 challenge.Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the decision of the Southern District of New York in Smarter Tools …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the mid-May 2019 decision in P v D and others  EWHC …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the 2019 decision from the English Commercial Court in GA-Hyun Chung …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the English High Court’s decision in K v P  EWHC …Continue Reading
Corrs Chambers Westgarth review the Singapore High Court’s 2019 decision in BVU v BVX  …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills summarises the July 2018 English High Court’s decision in Asset Management Corporation …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the decision from the English High Court in Fleetwood Wanderers Ltd …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the decision in N v W  HKCFI 2405, a decision …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the decision in P v M  HKCFI 2280, where the …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 review the decision of the Singapore High Court in Rakna Arakshaka Lanka …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the decision of the English Court dismissing an application by Ukraine …Continue Reading