Evening Talk with new SIAC Court Member, Mr Toby Landau QC

On 31 March 2015, SIAC hosted an evening talk with Mr Toby Landau QC at Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow. Mr Landau spoke on the topic “Recent Developments in the Defeat of International Awards”. The oversubscribed event saw about 120 attendees being treated to an intriguing evening with Mr Landau.

Mr Landau explored recent developments in leading jurisdictions where the defeat of international arbitral awards could actually be seen as truly pro-arbitration, contrary to widespread criticism. For starters, he described the common perception of the term “pro-arbitration” as self-evident events of national courts recognising and enforcing arbitral awards, or refusing to set aside awards. He opined that “pro-arbitration” as a nomenclature should not be used to mask the fundamental premise that courts cannot always refuse to set aside arbitral awards and cannot always recognize and enforce arbitral awards.

The architecture of the New York Convention and the Model Law is premised on a limited range of fundamental safeguards. The range is so limited that Articles II and V of the Convention and Articles 35 and 36 of the Model Law must be understood to be the “irreducible minimum”. In particular, one fundamental safeguard in the system is the de novo standard of review of an arbitral award on the issue of jurisdiction.

Mr Landau observed that national courts have elevated the “pro-arbitration” policy to a question of law and in some instances the court’s refusal to set aside arbitral awards or to recognise and enforce arbitral awards is immediately branded as “anti-arbitration”. Clear anti-arbitration cases where courts have presumably gone on the wrong side are typically the product of tactics used by lawyers to evade arbitration. Examples include: (a) party ignores arbitration agreement and litigates but court refuses to stay court proceedings; (b) court finds an incorrect application of the governing law to be in breach of public policy, e.g. ONGC v Saw Pipes; (c) court grants anti-arbitration injunction despite clear arbitration agreement e.g. Hubco v WAPDA; and (d) courts hearing a public interest writ petition filed by a third party on the subject of an arbitration.

Against this backdrop, Mr Landau examined three cases, namely, the English Supreme Court decision in Dallah v Pakistan (cf French court decision), the Singapore Court of Appeal decision in PT First Media v Astro (cf Hong Kong first instance court decision), and the Singapore High Court decision in Laos v Sanum, where he opined that the defeat of arbitral awards were in fact pro-arbitration. In these cases, the courts implemented the essential safeguard in the system of arbitration by conducting a de novo review of the arbitral award on jurisdiction. The result of the review per se is not as important as getting the process of review right. Deference to the arbitral tribunal is also irrelevant and misses the point. Regardless of how esteemed the tribunal may be, it has no mandate without consent. Mr Landau emphasised that it is unprincipled to say that it is wrong to undertake an unwinding of the arbitral process to find consent, and it is mere confusion to say that such cases which defeat arbitral awards are necessarily anti-arbitration.

To conclude, Mr Landau cautioned that the system of arbitration demands checks and balances. If the essential fundamental safeguards are not operating properly, to quote Irving Berlin “there may be trouble ahead”.

Eunice Chan
Associate, Drew & Napier LLC
for ysiac


Articles & Publications

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Interim Relief in International Arbitration

INTERIM RELIEF IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION Steven Lim; Partner Clyde & Co Clasis Singapore; 1. I will address in this short paper what standards and guidelines should be applied in determining interim relief in international arbitrations and whether there is any difference between the standards a tribunal and a national court might apply to this determination. ...

Read more

The SIAC Emergency Arbitrator Experience

THE SIAC EMERGENCY ARBITRATOR EXPERIENCE Vivekananda N., Deputy Registrar & Head (South Asia), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC); An earlier version of this article was published in the CDR Magazine. Parties rarely want to be engaged in an international dispute. People and companies want to get on with their business...

Read more

SC Limits Scope of Public Policy in Foreign Arbitral Awards

SC LIMITS SCOPE OF PUBLIC POLICY IN FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS Vyapak Desai, Partner, Nishith Desai Associates; Payel Chatterjee,  Nishith Desai Associates; Ashish Kabra, Nishith Desai Associates; “PATENT ILLEGALITY NOW NOT A SWORD ON ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN AWARDS”INTRODUCTION Recent judicial rulings are helping India to shed its ...

Read more

To “Seat” or not to “Seat”: Art Thou Relevant !!

Nakul Dewan, Counsel, Allen & Gledhill LLP, Singapore | Advocate, India. IntroductionWilliam Shakespeare’s soliloquy from Hamlet is an apt expression for parties who end up with the wrong seat of arbitration, by either having failed to make a choice or making the wrong one. Two recent decisions from the highest courts in India and Sing...

Read more

Derivatives Arbitration is on the Rise in Singapore

Kabir Singh, Counsel, Clifford Chance Asia; Matthew Brown, Associate, Clifford Chance Asia; Introduction The ISDA Annual General Meeting was hosted in Singapore in April 2013 and one of the hot topics discussed by delegates was the review by ISDA of its Master Agreement to include model arbitration clauses.Following an in-depth consultatio...

Read more

Developments for Arbitration of financial Sector Disputes

Andrew Pullen, Counsel, Allen & Overy, Singapore1; Introduction Arbitration is indispensable to international commerce. A recent survey by Queen Mary, University of London recorded that arbitration is the preferred form of resolving international disputes for the majority of in-house counsel (52% of whom said it was their first choice).2...

Read more

Financial Transactions in a Borderless World: The Movement towards Arbitration in OTC Derivatives

Nicholas Thio, Associate, Dispute Resolution and Litigation, Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP; Kirsty McAllister-Jones, Associate, Banking and Finance, Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP; Introduction Arbitration, a method of dispute resolution conducted through a privately constituted tribunal, has long been preferred over court litigation...

Read more

Singapore as a Seat for Investor-State Disputes

Vivekananda N., Head (South Asia) and Counsel, SIAC; Jagdish John Menezes, SIAC; IntroductionAs the global economy recovers from the financial crisis of 2008, foreign investments have gained momentum. These are facilitated and protected in part by the 2833 bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) and 331 multilateral international investment a...

Read more

Impact of BALCO on right to ship arrest in India

Abha Pareek, Assistant Counsel, SIAC; Siddharth Ranka, Associate, Bose & Mitra & Co, Mumbai; Introduction: The recent BALCO[1] decision of the Supreme Court of India (the "Supreme Court") has, already, been widely discussed and scrutinized[2]. In this article we move a step further and analyse the impact the...

Read more

Lessons from the BALCO Dicta of the Indian Supreme Court

A modified version of this article was first published in the Corporate Disputes Magazine of the Financier Worldwide which is available here  Vivekananda N., Head (South Asia) & Counsel, SIAC; International consciousness that India is an arbitration unfriendly jurisdiction has existed for some time now. This feeling owes in...

Read more
You are here: Home