The Singapore HC considers whether the arbitration clause or the jurisdiction clause applied to the dispute, finding that the parties’ intention was for the jurisdiction clause to carve out certain disputes from the arbitration clause.
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.
This month, Arbitrium contains a host of articles from Hong Kong, Singapore and England, including an important decision from the English Court of Appeal clarifying an issue that has vexed courts for some time – the relative weight to be given to the law of the seat and the law of the main contract, where they differ, in determining the proper law of the arbitration agreement.Continue Reading
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 interplay between arbitration and winding up proceedings continues to attract judicial attention, with a recent decision from Singapore’s highest court affirming the prima facie test, meaning that a debtor need only show that there is a dispute subject to an arbitration agreement.
In this month’s Newsletter, Arbitrium features an update in relation to the legal impact of the coronavirus outbreak, bringing together posts from a range of law firms at the forefront of advising commercial parties, and a range of judgments dealing with set-aside applications from England, Hong Kong and Singapore.Continue Reading
Like last month, the aim of this post is to bring together a number of recent articles published by law firms at the forefront of advising commercial parties in dealing with the pandemic. It is my hope that an update next month will not be necessary.Continue Reading
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.
This month, Arbitrium brings you a range of cases including, from Singapore, the Court of Appeal’s decision in BXS v BNY (overturning the High Court on the question of the right seat of arbitration), and a High Court decision dealing with the public policy ground of objection and time limits ; a raft of cases from England, including a CA decision concerning the governing law of an arbitration agreement and consideration of no oral modification provisions; and an interesting link to the “Disputes Clause Finder”, an online tool which provides users with tailored dispute resolution clauses.Continue Reading
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.
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.
Arbitrium wishes all our readers, subscribers and sponsors the very best for 2020. This month, we welcome two additional sponsors, Hong Kong law firms GPS McQuhae LLP and Yang Chau Law Office and report on several cases dealing with anti-suit injunction applications.Continue Reading
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.
We are delighted to report that in the space of only a few months, Arbitrium now boasts a subscriber list of nearly 1,800 specialist international arbitration practitioners from around the globe. Many of these subscribers have also joined the Arbitrium group on LinkedIn. Thank you to all our readers, our contributors and our sponsors for their support.Continue Reading
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 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.
A range of cases from Hong Kong, England, Malaysia and Singapore including an update on the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Measures between Hong Kong and the Mainland, an Arbitrator’s duty of impartiality and independence, and a host of enforcement-related cases.Continue Reading
The Singapore Court of Appeal confirms the decision of first instance court to lift a stay on proceedings but on different grounds.
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.
This month, in addition to the usual International Arbitration updates from around the globe, we highlight an issue which arises regularly and continues to vex courts around the world – the extent to which third parties/non-signatories may rely on or be bound by an arbitration agreement.
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.
A practical overview of third party funding in belt and road disputes in the main arbitral seats together with practical takeaways on what a party should consider when considering third party funding and tips to ensure its use is successful.
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.
In addition to the usual IA updates from around the globe, we highlight two cases, a HK CA decision dealing with a stay application in the context of insolvency proceedings, the other from Singapore refusing an extension of time to bring a setting aside application under Article 34 of the Model Law.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
In a significant legal development, the Singapore Mediation Convention, modeled on the New York Convention, facilitates the enforcement of international settlement agreements arising from mediation.Continue Reading
This month, a series of cases from Malaysia dealing with injunctions, including to restrain the calling of performance bonds and the grant of an anti-arbitration injunction, as well as a review of the Rakna decision from Singapore, concerning the effects to enforcement of non-participation in the arbitration proceedings.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
Morrison Foerster review the Singapore Ministry of Law’s 26 June 2019 consultation paper seeking comments …Continue Reading
An interesting array of legal developments this month including the Hong Kong court’s refusal to grant a stay to arbitration under Article 8 ML, and a range of enforcement-related cases from Hong Kong, Singapore and England.Continue Reading
Corrs Chambers Westgarth review the Singapore High Court’s 2019 decision in BVU v BVX  …Continue Reading
Linklaters review the 2018 decision in Marty Ltd v Hualon Corp (Malaysia)  SGCA 63, …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the decision of the Singapore High Court in Rakna Arakshaka Lanka …Continue Reading
Stephenson Harwood reviews the Singapore High Court’s decision in Ling Kong Henry v Tanglin Club …Continue Reading
Stephenson Harwood review the Singapore High Court’s decision in Sinolanka Hotels & Spa (Private) Limited …Continue Reading
Stephenson Harwood review the 2018 decision of the Singapore High Court in Sanum Investments Limited …Continue Reading
Linklaters review of the Singapore High Court’s 2018 decision in China Machine New Energy Corp …Continue Reading
King & Wood Mallesons summarise the basic principles of mediation and arbitration and the SIAC-SIMC …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the Singapore High Court’s decision in Heartronics Corporation v EPI Life …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the 2016 Singapore High Court’s decision in the ground-breaking case of Sanum …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review a decision of the Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court (not released to …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the 2017 decision of the Singapore High Court in BMO v …Continue Reading
Courts regularly face the situation where a contract grants a right to only one of …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the Singapore High Court’s 2017 decision in K.V.C Rice Intertrade Co …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the Singapore Court of Appeal’s 2016 decision in Sanum Investments Ltd v …Continue Reading