Singapore Law Gazette – Arbitration in 2014: Looking Ahead to 2015

Our article on Arbitration in 2014: Looking Ahead to 2015 has also been published in the March 2015 edition of the Singapore Law Gazette.

The SLW commentary looks at the following significant 2014 Singapore court cases involving arbitration that either dealt with novel points of law, or were otherwise noteworthy in that they differ from the equivalent English position:

  1. R1 v Lonstroff [2014] SGHC 69 – power of the Singapore court to grant permanent anti-suit injunctions in aid of arbitration. See our detailed analysis of the case here. Our examination of the Singapore Court of Appeal decision is at Case Update: Court of Appeal grants permanent anti-suit injunction in R1 v Lonstroff.
  2. Silica Investors v Tomolugen Holdings [2014] SGHC 101 – limited arbitrability of intra-corporate disputes. The Singapore court declined to follow what it deemed to be the broad approach to arbitrability by the English court in Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards and another [2011] EWCA Civ 855; [2012] Ch 333. Our detailed analysis of the case can be found here.
  3. FirstLink v GT Payment [2014] SGHCR 12 – Seat of Arbitration and Implied Choice of Governing Law of Arbitration Agreement. The Singapore High Court disagreed with the English position and held that where parties had expressly provided for the governing law of the underlying agreement (eg England and Wales), but had chosen a different seat for the arbitration (eg Singapore), the Singapore courts would not infer or assume that parties intended for the law of the underlying contract to take precedence over that of the law of the seat of the arbitration. Our detailed look at the case is available here.
  4. PT Central Investindo v Franciscus Wongso [2014] SGHC 190 – the Singapore court will determine a challenge to arbitrator for bias even when the final award has been rendered. Our examination of the case is available here.

Our article also considers likely trends in 2015 regarding the practice of international arbitration which are worth watching out for:

  1. The growth of the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC).
  2. The regulation of external or alternative funding of international arbitration in Singapore.
  3. Passing of the Myanmar (International) Arbitration Bill. See our Singapore Law Gazette article Myanmar Draft Arbitration Bill to Further Bolster Foreign Investor Confidence for further background.

This follows our Singapore Law Gazette article Arbitration in Singapore 2013: A Year in Review published last year which looks back at significant Singapore Court decisions of 2013 involving arbitration.

About Shaun Lee

International Dispute Resolution and Arbitration lawyer. Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitration. Panel of Arbitrators and Panelist for DNDR at the KLRCA.
This entry was posted in Arbitration, Asean, Myanmar, Singapore, UK and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Singapore Law Gazette – Arbitration in 2014: Looking Ahead to 2015

  1. Patterson says:

    Shaun Lees’ excellent and precise analysis contains a beautiful under-statement “The legal analysis can get complicated”,oh boy!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s