Despite the COVID 19 pandemic, the international arbitration scene pulsated unabated with incessant heightened activity. In October 2020, the SIAC announced that it had for the first time passed the threshold of more than 1000 new cases filed in a year under its rules. The Supreme Court saw more arbitration-related cases than ever, and released close to 30 written decisions, of which 6 were decisions by the Court of Appeal. Several of these decisions appear to be indicators that the Singapore judiciary intends to play a key role in developing internationa jurisprudence in the international arbitration arena.

 

The speaker will firstly cast an overview of the decisions made and will then identify some specific cases where lessons could be learnt, or where new approaches or principles are being developed. These will include China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2020] SGCA 12, where the Court of Appeal suggested that it would adopt a ‘fact-sensitive inquiry’ when considering whether a tribunal had given the complaining party in a setting-aside application, a ‘full opportunity to be heard’. He will also consider the Court of Appeal’s decision in PUBG Corp v Garena International I Pte Ltd and others [2020] SGCA 51, where the Court had to consider granting a stay of court proceedings (exercising its case management power) arising in the context of a dispute which one of the parties claimed was settled by way of a settlement agreement which contained an arbitration clause. The decision in BRS v BRQ and another and another appeal [2020] SGCA 108, where the Court ruled that the filing of a request for correction under Art 34(3) of UNCITRAL Model Law would only be effective to extend time for any application to set aside if the request for correction was, in substance, a request for correction within the terms of the provision will also be discussed and its implication examined. The Court’s decision in BBA and others v BAZ [2020] SGCA 53 upholding an award based on a tortious claim of fraudulent misrepresentation despite criticisms by the respondents of the tribunal’s quantification methodology and failure to apportion liability amongst the respondents will also be critically examined.

 

Some High Court decisions, such as the case of Republic of India v Vedanta Resources plc [2020] SGHC 208 which dealt with the issue of whether the International Arbitration Act (and UNCITRAL Model Law adopted therein) extends to “investor-state disputes” and whether a court should make declarations that could have the consequence of altering the effect of an arbitral tribunal’s orders in pending arbitrations, will also be examined.

 

The webinar promises to be interesting and attendees will be provided with a digest of all the reported decisions made in 2020.