Tag Archives: setting aside

Singapore High Court rejects attempt to set aside an award for breach of an alleged agreed arbitral procedure

The Singapore High Court recently delivered another pro-arbitration, pro-enforcement decision in Triulzi Cesare SRL v Xinyi Group (Glass) Co Ltd, [2014] SGHC 220 (“Triulzi v Xinyi”). The plaintiff’s i.e. Triulzi Cesare SRL (“Triulzi”) decision to challenge an adverse ICC award … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, China | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Singapore Law Gazette – Arbitration in Singapore 2013: A Year in Review

We are pleased to announce that the Singapore Law Gazette has just published an exclusive article that we recently wrote for them. The article Arbitration in Singapore 2013: A Year in Review is now available online. As we enter 2014, … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, UK | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Case Update: Compliance with Multi-Tier Clauses must be adhered to strictly

We have previously written about International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and anor, [2013] 1 SLR 973 (see here). In that case, the Singapore High Court upheld a multi-tiered dispute resolution mechanism which involved an escalation clause. The escalation … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Setting Aside Arbitral Awards in Singapore: A Problem in the Standard of Review?

A Singapore High Court judgment is generally appealable as of right to the Singapore Court of Appeal. The aggrieved party may appeal on the basis that the High Court judge was wrong on the law or even on the facts. … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, Hong Kong, Singapore | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Update on Astro-Lippo Dispute: Astro’s appeal to Indonesian Supreme Court fails

Our readers would be aware that we have written a fair bit on the Astro-Lippo dispute, including the background of the dispute, what the dispute tells us about enforcement in arbitration as well as the parties’ skirmishes before the Hong … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The End of Doctrine of Patent Illegality for Foreign Awards in India?

In a remarkable recent decision, the Supreme Court of India in Shri Lal Mahal Ltd v Progetto Grano SpA, Civil Appeal No. 5085 of 2013, has bolstered its pro-arbitration and pro-enforcement credentials. The court definitively held that the doctrine of … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, India | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Astro v Lippo: Hearing Dates updates

Our readers who have been following this case might be interested to know that the hearing of the appeal of the High Court decision in Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others, [2012] SGHC 212 … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Case Update: (1) Incorporation of Arbitration Clause; (2) Enforceability of Multi-Tiered Dispute Resolution Mechanism and (3) Possible lacuna in the IAA read with the Model Law

The Singapore High Court recently determined an interesting point of arbitration law in International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and anor, [2013] 1 SLR 973. The issue was whether an arbitration clause contained in a … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, Asean, Singapore | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Astro vs Lippo – Updates: Awards upheld by the Singapore High Court

The Singapore High Court has dismissed challenges brought by the Lippo Group in respect of 5 domestic international arbitration awards rendered against them pursuant to an SIAC arbitration in Singapore between the Lippo Group and the Astro Group (the “Singapore … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, Asean, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Orders / directions of arbitral tribunal not liable to be set aside as if they are arbitral awards

The Singapore High Court has recently reaffirmed the substance/procedure distinction for the purposes of categorising arbitral orders and arbitral awards. The High Court held that an order is not liable to be challenged and set aside as if it were … Continue reading

Posted in Arbitration, Indonesia, Singapore | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments