• postimage

    07:13 PM Rachel Tan Xi’en, LLB (Hons), Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore and Bethel Chan Ruiyi, Juris Doctor (SMU), Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

    Examining Principle and Legality: Singapore’s Experience at International Courts and Tribunals

    Singapore has always affirmed that the international legal order should be stable and predictable, as international law levels the playing field in international relations. Singapore’s specific experience in its international disputes with other states shows that its practice of international law is consistent with its publicly expressed sentiment. This article will examine Singapore’s experienc...

  • postimage

    11:02 PM Rachel Tan Xi’en, LLB (Hons), Practice Fellow, Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore

    Case Comment: Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of Lesotho [2018] SGCA 81

    On 27 November 2018, the Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) released a 116-page written judgment in Swissbourgh Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Kingdom of Lesotho (“Swissbourgh v Lesotho”), just six months after a five-judge bench comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang JA, Judith Prakash JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA, and Steven Chong JA heard the appeal over two days in May 2018. This is the s...

  • postimage

    09:38 PM Wu Junneng (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)

    The Reign of Party Autonomy and Contractual Sanctity: Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 65

    Litigation is like a game of chess – every “move” is a calculated one. The forum where the dispute is heard may be crucial. To that end, commercial parties often agree in advance on the forum to resolve their dispute. Such forum selection agreements are commonly known as jurisdiction (exclusive or non-exclusive) or arbitration agreements. This commentary will examine the recent decision of Vinma...

  • 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, ...