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; Managing Partner, Singapore, Nabarro LLP 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

Third-Party Funding In Arbitration: Neither A Menace Nor A Leveller, But An Inevitable Consequence of Financialization

Darren MayberryAirhart & Associates, Louisville, KY, USA Today, just about any product, service, or right may be priced, monetized, securitized, traded, assigned, or purchased. We might call this universal pricing phenomenon one of the defining features of our latest economic era, an era of financialization. In general, financialization refers to "the increasing dominance of...

Read more

Third Party Funding in International Arbitration: A Slippery Slope or Levelling the Playing Field?

Angus Fei Ni Debevoise & Plimpton LLP “[I]n those times . . . a man would buy a weak claim, in hopes that power might convert it into a strong one, and that the sword of a baron, stalking into court with a rabble of retainers at his heels, might strike terror into the eyes of a judge upon the bench. At present, what cares an English judge for the swords of a hundred barons?...

Read more

False Testimony in Arbitration: Incentives and Solutions

Adam RavivWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLPIf I could change one thing about arbitration, I would make parties more accountable for presenting false testimony. Many a practitioner has witnessed perjured testimony in arbitration. And many a practitioner has likely been frustrated when those who testify falsely in a high-stakes proceeding face no consequences for doing so....

Read more

The Emergency Arbitrator and Expedited Procedure in SIAC: A New Direction for Arbitration in Asia

In July 2010, the new SIAC Rules were promulgated which provided for two new and innovative provisions for parties: the emergency arbitrator and the expedited procedure. Both procedures have proven remarkably successful in providing parties with alternative means to obtain immediate relief and reduce time and costs in the resolution of their dispute. Emergency Arbitrator The e...

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
You are here: Home