Search for:
Category

Recognition & Enforcement

Category

The Singapore Court of Appeal (“SGCA”) recently ruled in ST Group Co Ltd andothers v Sanum Investments Limited and another appeal [2019] SGCA 65 thatonce an arbitration is incorrectly seated (i.e. in a seat not chosen by the parties),in the absence of a waiver by the parties, any subsequent award would not berecognised and enforced by the court. This judgment shows that the Singapore courts will unequivocally uphold theprinciples of party autonomy and free choice…

In BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) heard its first application to set aside an arbitral award. The SICC considered whether it had the power to extend the time limit imposed on bringing an application to set aside an award, particularly in circumstances where a setting aside application that has been brought out of time lacks merit. The SICC also considered the wording of an arbitration agreement that failed…

Castro v. TriMarine Fish Co. LLC, No. 17-35703 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2019) [click for opinion] Plaintiff Castro was injured while working as a deck hand aboard a fishing vessel owned by Defendants, several TriMarine companies (collectively referred to as “TriMarine”). Castro, a citizen of the Philippines who had relocated to American Samoa, had an employment agreement with TriMarine calling for arbitration in, and subject to the procedural rules of, American Samoa. After his injury,…

Gretton Ltd. v. Republic of Uzbekistan, No. 18-cv-01755 (D.D.C. Feb. 6, 2019) [click for opinion] Petitioner, Gretton Ltd. (“Gretton”), is a litigation funder. Following the alleged expropriation of two gold-mining operations run by Oxus Gold PLC (“Oxus”) in the Republic of Uzbekistan, Gretton funded an arbitration on behalf of Oxus in return for an assignment of the proceeds of any award. In 2015, an arbitral panel sitting in Paris found Uzbekistan liable for approximately $10…