• postimage

    11:06 PM Hairul Hakkim and Leong Hoi Seng Victor (Justices’ Law Clerks)

    When will a stay of court proceedings be granted in favour of arbitration? – interpreting “null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed”

    When can a party successfully avoid court proceedings in favour of arbitration? This is an issue frequently encountered by the Singapore courts in the context of international commercial arbitrations. But what is not entirely clear is the scope of the terms “null and void”, “inoperative” and “incapable of being performed” (“the three limbs”) in requirement (c). This is the topic that we propose to...

  • postimage

    09:08 PM Leong Hoi Seng Victor (Justices’ Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Singapore)

    Examining the “special circumstances” test in BLY v BLZ [2017] SGHC 59: when should jurisdictional challenges result in stays of the arbitral proceedings?

    In BLY v BLZ and another [2017] SGHC 59 (“BLY”), the High Court considered a little-considered question arising under section 10(9) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IAA”). Two parties had gone to arbitration. The tribunal rendered its finding on jurisdiction, which one party then challenged in the High Court. The challenging party invited the Court to exercise its disc...

  • postimage

    07:11 PM Wu Junneng and Tan Tian Hui (Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP)

    Of prima facie standard(s), bare arbitration clauses and constituting arbitral tribunals: KVC Rice Intertrade Co Ltd v Asian Mineral Resources Pte Ltd and another suit [2017] SGHC 32

    A bare arbitration clause is an arbitration clause that does not specify the place or means of appointing arbitrators. It may also not specify the seat of arbitration and in which case, two interesting questions arise. First, how is a Court that has yet to be seized with jurisdiction deal with a request to refer the dispute to arbitration? Second, what is the extent to which the International Arbi...

  • postimage

    11:40 PM Darius Chan (Ascendant Legal LLC, in association with Norton Rose Fulbright Singapore)

    Have the Singapore Courts Faltered in the Enforcement of Arbitration Agreements? TMT Co Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2017] SGHC 21

    In TMT Co Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2017] SGHC 21, the Singapore High Court took the view that an arbitration clause did not meet the prima facie standard to warrant a stay of court proceedings because it designated an inapplicable arbitral institution. Commentators have suggested that the decision is “surprising” and out of line with the prevailing judicial policy of upholding arbitr...

  • postimage

    04:45 PM Kevin Elbert (Associate, OC Queen Street LLC)

    Not So Different After All: Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democractic Republic [2016] SGCA 57

    Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People’s Democractic Republic [2016] SGCA 57 (“Sanum CA”) is the first dispute brought pursuant to a bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) to have ever reached the Singapore court. The Court of Appeal decision elucidates that, generally, the review of jurisdictional awards under investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) is not significantly distinct fro...