• postimage

    10:31 PM Marcus Teo (Centre for International Law, NUS)

    Floating/Invalid Choice of Law Clauses in Context: Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2018] SGHC 172

    When a contract’s choice of law clause is invalid, what happens to the main contract, or any jurisdiction clause therein? In Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming [2018] SGHC 172 (“Shanghai Turbo”), the Singapore High Court (“the Court”) noted that an invalid choice of law clause (1) will not impugn the formation of the main contract, but (2) will affect the validity of a proximate jurisdictio...

  • postimage

    10:21 PM Filbert Lam (LLM International Banking Law and Finance Candidate (Edinburgh); LLB (Hons) First Class (Edinburgh))

    Arbitrability of Insolvency-related Claims – A Comparison between the English and Singapore Positions

    Corporate insolvency is messy business. An efficient winding up of an underperforming company’s affairs allows for better allocation of scarce resources in the economy. Problems arise where agreements entered into prior to insolvency contain arbitration clauses which may conflict with statutory insolvency proceedings. Are such disputes arbitrable? And if so, what are the issues which remain within...

  • postimage

    02:28 PM Darius Chan (Norton Rose Fulbright)

    Is Article 16(3) of the Model Law A ‘One-Shot Remedy’ for Non-Participating Respondents in International Arbitrations?

    It is not uncommon for practitioners acting for claimants in arbitrations to encounter a respondent who chooses to boycott the arbitral process. In cases involving such ‘non-participating’ respondents, what are the rights and obligations of each party? Specifically, insofar as Model law jurisdictions are concerned, if a Tribunal decides on jurisdiction as a preliminary issue must the non-particip...

  • postimage

    06:05 PM Darius Chan (Norton Rose Fulbright)

    Interpreting Contracts Under Singapore Law in International Arbitration — The Sequel

    Article 16(3) of the Model Law provides in relevant part that, “if the arbitral tribunal rules as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, any party may request … the court … to decide the matter”. One question that arises is, to the extent issues of evidence arise, what rules of evidence should the court apply when “decid[ing] the matter”? Does the court apply national rules of evidence, ...

  • postimage

    06:08 PM Kevin Elbert (Associate, OC Queen Street LLC)

    Whither Limit to the Tribunal's Case Management Powers: China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2018] SGHC 101

    It is well accepted that an arbitral tribunal has a wide discretion over the procedural aspects of arbitral proceedings. This discretion ranges from deciding the timeline of the arbitration to parties' disclosure obligations to evidential matters. The recent Singapore High Court decision of China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2018] SGHC 101 tests the limits of ...