Search for:
Category

Singapore

Category

Arbitral tribunals have the power under Singapore law to rule on their own jurisdiction, consistent with the widely recognised principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz. In a recent decision, the Singapore High Court has confirmed that this power extends not only to questions concerning the validity or scope of any arbitration agreement under which the tribunal has been constituted, but also questions concerning the very existence of an arbitration agreement. This includes situations where a party to the…

TRADITIONAL ARBITRATION INSTITUTIONS IN TIMES OF ANTI-RUSSIAN SANCTIONS There has been discussion in recent months about a potential shift away from the common preference of Russian companies to refer disputes under their contracts to LCIA (or sometimes ICC) arbitration in London, with English law as the governing law. The shift is considered to be a reaction against the imposition of sanctions by the United States and European Union in relation to events in Crimea and…

In Coal & Oil Co LLC v GHCL Ltd [2015] SGHC 65, the Singapore High Court held that in the absence of express arbitral rules imposing a time limit for the release of an arbitral award, a 19 month delay in the issue of an award after parties’ final submissions was not a sufficient basis for setting aside the award. In holding that such a delay was not per se against public policy, The Singapore…

In FirstLink Investments Corp Ltd v GT Payment Pte Ltd [2014] SGHCR 12, the Singapore High Court held that an international arbitration agreement expressed to be governed by an arbitral institution’s rules instead of a national law may be enforceable. The court also held that, in absence of any contrary indications, the parties’ choice of arbitral seat would be taken as the parties’ implied choice of proper law governing the arbitration agreement. Facts FirstLink Investments…