30 August 2019
SIAC India Summit 2019 - Investor State Arbitration
By Abhijnan Jha, Senior Associate, AZB & Partners

The two-day SIAC India Summit 2019 titled “Modern Trends and Perspectives on Investor State Dispute Settlement and International Commercial Arbitration” opened with an inaugural conference on Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) which featured a star-studded line-up of speakers. More than 250 delegates including practitioners, in-house counsel, professionals and students were in attendance on the first day of the Summit.

Mr. Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC and Executive Chairman, Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, gave the welcome address, which was followed by the opening address by Mr. K. Shanmugam, SC, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Singapore, and the keynote address by Mr. Gary Born, President, SIAC Court of Arbitration and Chair, International Arbitration Practice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Panel Session I: Future of ISDS in Asia

The first panel session was moderated by Dr. Rishab Gupta, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.

The panellists were Justice B.N. Srikrishna (Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India), Mr Gary Born, Professor Bernard Hanotiau, Partner, Hanotiau and Van Den Berg, and Mr. Andre Yeap, SC, Senior Partner, Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP.

In this session, the panellists discussed major developments in treaty-making in the Asia Pacific region, multilateral investment courts, the current ISDS regime, third party funding in ISDS, the role of ISDS in addressing disputes arising from the Belt and Road Initiative, and diversity in arbitrator appointments.

Panel Session II: Speed Round: The State of Play of Investment Arbitration in India (Part A)

The second panel session was moderated by Ms. Shaneen Parikh, Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration and Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

The panellists were Mr. Toby Landau QC, Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Barrister & Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) and Essex Court Chambers (London), Mr. Abhileen Chaturvedi, Associate Partner, Economic Laws Practice, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Founder and Managing Partner, DMD Advocates, and Mr. Kent Phillips, Partner, Hogan Lovells.

In this session, the panellists discussed the state of play of investment arbitration in India with a special focus on the new India model bilateral investment treaty, parallel proceedings, anti-arbitration injunctions, and enforcement of investment treaty awards.

Panel Session III: Speed Round: The State of Play of Investment Arbitration in India (Part B)

The final panel session on investment arbitration was moderated by Mr. Prakash Pillai, Partner, Clyde & Co Clasis Singapore.

The panellists were Ms. Shwetha Bidhuri, Head (South Asia), SIAC, Mr. Arvind Datar, SA, Madras High Court, and Dr. Romesh Weeramantry, Counsel, Clifford Chance. In this session, the panellists discussed the evolution of the current landscape of bilateral investment treaties in India, the impact of change in India’s approach towards investor protection on the inflow of foreign direct investment, protection of investors investing outside India and exclusion of tax measures from investment treaties.

Mr. Rajiv Luthra, Member, SIAC Board of Directors; Founder and Managing Partner, L&L Partners, concluded Day 1 of the Summit with closing remarks in his inimitable style.

16 August 2019
SIAC Announces the Appointment of New Co-Deputy Head (China)



The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that Ms Sophia Liu Jianying has been appointed to the position of Co-Deputy Head (China). Ms Liu joins Mr Leo Liu Rundong who is the current Deputy Head (China).

Both the China representatives are based in SIAC’s Shanghai office, and are responsible for promoting the development of international arbitration through arbitration events and training programmes in China.

Prior to joining SIAC, Sophia practised in the fields of arbitration, litigation and finance at various law firms in China.

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are delighted to welcome Sophia to the SIAC team. Her combined disputes and transactional experience will bring a commercially nuanced perspective to her role, which will further enhance and cement our ties within the international arbitration community in China."


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

5 August 2019
SIAC-SCIA Seminar on ‘’Effective Dispute Resolution for Greater Bay Area Companies Investing in ASEAN’’
By Kevin Elbert, Associate, TSMP Law Corporation

On 5 August 2019, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) organised a seminar titled ‘’Effective Dispute Resolution for Greater Bay Area Companies Investing in ASEAN’’. The topic for the seminar was particularly appropriate in view of the signing of the Singapore Mediation Convention on 7 August 2019, and the seminar was well attended by guests from all around the world who visited Singapore to witness the signing of the Singapore Mediation Convention.

The session was opened by Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) who delivered the welcome address. Ms Lim said that SIAC is well-positioned to support the commercial needs of Chinese investors, companies and businesses involved in cross-border projects and investments, particularly in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative. SIAC has many arbitrators who are proficient in Chinese and have handled Chinese cases, and there are eminent Chinese international arbitration practitioners on the SIAC Court of Arbitration. As China takes centre stage in the global economy, SIAC is looking forward to deepening ties with its Chinese partners.

This was followed by an opening address by Mr Anthony Neoh QC, SC (Vice Chairman, SCIA). Mr Neoh emphasised the importance of the Greater Bay Area in the global economy. For instance, Shenzhen is now the base for many important international companies. This means that there is an important role for Shenzhen to take the lead in promoting the dispute resolution processes in the area. To further this aim, SCIA is looking forward to forming more collaborations with its global partners in the future.

Panel Session I: Trends and Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution Involving BRI Investments in ASEAN Countries

The first panel discussed the issue of trends and recent developments in ASEAN countries: Dr Christopher Boog (Partner, Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd) moderated a panel comprising Mr Chan Hock Keng (Partner, WongPartnership LLP), Mr Armstrong Chen (Senior Partner, Dentons Law Offices (Shanghai)), Ms Lexi Menish (Senior Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) and Mr Tony Zhang (Senior Partner, Co-Effort Law Firm LLP).

The panel session started with the question: why is arbitration appropriate for BRI investments for ASEAN countries. Ms Menish explained that arbitration is appropriate because of factors such as neutrality and enforceability. Neutrality is especially important because disputes relating to infrastructure and projects often involve a state-owned entity and one may not want to litigate in the national courts. Mr Zhang added that due to the enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention, arbitration is also an appealing choice for Chinese parties.

On the topic of choice of institution, Mr Chen pointed out that while European parties prefer traditional institutions such as ICC or HKIAC, and Chinese parties would prefer a Chinese arbitration commission, the trend is now to pick a neutral option such as SIAC. However, at the end of the day, parties’ main concerns are costs and efficiency of the arbitral proceedings and parties will generally opt for the most cost-competitive and most efficient institution.

Ms Menish added that in response to BRI investments, institutions have modified their rules, citing the recent update to the HKIAC rules to allow for consolidation of multiple contracts. There is also an arrangement for the enforcement of interim measures between Hongkong and mainland China. Mr Zhang then discussed how China is amending its arbitration laws and practices to meet the needs and expectations of international users, such as an internal court system for enforcement whereby the lower courts would report to the upper courts on their decisions on enforcement of arbitral awards, to ensure consistency in the application of law.

From arbitration, the topic then moved on to commercial courts. Dr Boog started the discussion by asking what role commercial courts such as the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) can play in BRI disputes involving ASEAN parties. Mr Chan responded that SICC can be used for BRI disputes, but parties have to agree to bring their case to SICC so as to have foreign judges hear the case. Mr Chen commented on the Chinese International Commercial Courts (CICC), noting that the benefit of referring disputes to CICC is potentially easier enforcement in China. The Chinese state-owned enterprises in particular would prefer to refer their disputes to CICC.

Panel Session II: Procedural Tips, Techniques and Strategies in International Arbitration for BRI Disputes

The second panel discussed tips, techniques and strategies in international arbitration for BRI disputes. The panel was moderated by Dr Yifei Lin (Principal Consultant, Guangdong Yi & Partners Law Firm), and the panellists were Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC (Senior Counsel and Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers Duxton), Mr Simon Dunbar (Partner, King & Spalding), Mr Jiong (John) Liu (Senior Partner, AllBright Law Offices) and Prof Dr Peter Malanczuk (SCIA, Council Member).

The first topic that the panel touched on was interim measures and emergency arbitration. Mr Chan started off the topic by sharing that in Singapore, interim measures can be granted by the courts and tribunals, but the tricky tactical decision in arbitration is where to seek such measures, which would be dependent on the facts of each case.

On the topic of investor-state dispute settlement, Dr Malanczuk shared that in China there are distinctions between treaty-based claims and contract-based claims. Treaty-based claims are excluded from the purview of CICC, but the position is not so clear in respect of contract-based claims. This may give rise to issues of parallel proceedings.

On procedural strategies, Mr Dunbar spoke about the importance of the seat and selection of arbitrators. The seat determines the legal regime of the arbitration due to the role of the supervisory court, and convenience should not be a factor to determine the seat. On the selection of arbitrators, parties have to consider factors such as the expertise of the arbitrator.

Mr Liu commented on interim measures in China. Even though obtaining interim measures locally may be easy, enforcing a tribunal order on interim measures may be difficult. Parties also need to know whether there are assets to be enforced against in the jurisdiction.

The panel ended with an audience discussion on online dispute resolution. All the panellists agreed that the use of technology in arbitration such as e-discovery should be encouraged.

1 August 2019
SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Malaya

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Malaya (UM) Faculty of Law.

Under the MOU, SIAC and UM will work together to place law students from UM in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and UM will collaborate to incorporate a module on "SIAC and Institutional Arbitration" into the UM law programme. Upon request by SIAC or UM, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in Malaysia to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.

The MOU was signed on 1 August 2019, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Dato' Associate Professor Dr Johan Shamsuddin Bin Hj Sabaruddin (Dato' Dr Johan Shamsuddin), Dean of UM Faculty of Law.

Dato' Dr Johan Shamsuddin, Dean of UM Faculty of Law, said, "Following the recent collaboration between UM Faculty of Law and SIAC to jointly host the highly successful Kuala Lumpur edition of the SIAC Academy in March 2019, we look forward to deepening our cooperation efforts to cultivate and promote the benefits of international arbitration to future generations of  international arbitration experts in Malaysia."

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, "We are honoured and delighted to be given the opportunity to work closely with UM, a premier Malaysian academic institution. Malaysian parties have consistently ranked amongst SIAC's top ten foreign users, and Malaysia is a key market for us. This partnership provides an excellent platform for SIAC to contribute further towards the development of international arbitration in Malaysia and to forge closer ties with key stakeholders in the Malaysian arbitration community.


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

05 July 2019
SIAC Jakarta Conference 2019
By Julia Nugroho, Senior Associate, Dewi Negara Fachri & Partners (in association with Hogan Lovells)

The SIAC Jakarta Conference 2019 was titled "Damages in International Arbitration: Contemporary Principles and Practices" and it attracted over 200 participants, including in-house counsel and professionals.

Mr. Kevin Nash (Deputy Registrar & Centre Director, SIAC) opened the session noting the release of the SIAC Rules 2016 which sought to make arbitration faster and more efficient. SIAC has arguably handled more Emergency Arbitration applications than any other jurisdiction in the world, and was the first commercial arbitration institution to release the early dismissal procedure for claims and defences. SIAC also has a robust provision for joinder and consolidation provisions.

Mr. Cavinder Bull, SC (Vice President of SIAC Court of Arbitration) followed with the opening address noting the stellar performance of SIAC in 2018. In 2017, Singapore was ranked the 3rd most preferred seat of arbitration in the world, and SIAC was the 3rd most preferred arbitration institution in the world. Parties need to have an effective way to resolve cross border transactions, and arbitration has proven to be the best solution to resolve those disputes. Arbitration gives us, among others, a flexible procedure, speedy resolution, low cost, suitability for complex dispute, confidentiality, and international enforceability.

Panel Session I: Contemporary Damages Principles in International Arbitration

The first panel discussed the contemporary damages principles. Dr. Mohamed Idwan (‘Kiki’) Gani (Managing Partner of Lubis Ganie Surowidjojo) moderated a panel of distinguished speakers comprising Mr. Andi Kadir (Partner of HHP Law Firm), Mr. Ignatius Andy S.H. (Partner, Ignatius Andy Law Offices), Mr. Simon Barrie Sasmoyo (Senior Associate of Assegaf Hamzah & Partners), and Mr. Simon Dunbar (Partner of King & Spalding).

Mr. Andy discussed the damages that can be recovered for a breach of contract claim which under Indonesian Civil Code (ICC) is comprised of compensation of cost, loss, and interest. An interesting point raised by Mr. Andi Kadir was the good faith concept in Indonesia and whether it is the “unruly horse” of the ICC. Good faith principle has been used to relax the application of the ICC, to make certain deviation on the calculation of damages. In relation to this, Indonesian courts do not provide a clear reasoning and do not provide a clear threshold when the parties and the court can invoke the notion of good faith. If there is a violation of justice, the court has the authority to apply the notion of good faith to rectify or remedy the situation, and it is in line with the principle of justice. This may create legal uncertainty. Similar concerns may also be noted from the open-ended notion of the public policy concept.

Mr. Sasmoyo continued the session by sharing his experience and practical tips. Based on his experience, he has seen the Tribunal grant liquidated damages because it is a more reasonable calculation by the parties as opposed to a penalty, which is punitive in nature. Therefore, stipulating exorbitant figures (e.g., twice or triple the contract amount) in the penalty clause would not be wise.

Mr. Dunbar discussed examples of typical damages clauses in a contract. Limitation of liability, no consequential loss, and liquidated damages provisions are generally treated as boilerplate provisions but have significant impact on the economics of the transaction. He emphasised the importance of clarity on what you want to exclude in the contract.

Panel Session II: Quantifying Damages in Post-M&A Disputes

The second panel focused on quantifying damages in post M&A disputes, and was moderated by Mr. Cavinder Bull, SC. The speakers were Mr. Oommen Mathew (Managing Partner of DWF LLP), Mr. Iain Potter (MDD Forensic Accountants), Mr. Ajinderpal Singh (Senior Partner of Denton Rodyks & Davidson LLP), and Mr. Kabir Singh (Partner of Clifford Chance).

Mr. Mathew gave an overview on proof of damages including the preservation of evidence and providing the evidence in arbitration. Post-M&A disputes often arise out of breach of warranty provisions, fraudulent misrepresentation, and valuation or tax disputes. As such, the examination of the relevant documentary evidence would be crucial. Mr. Kabir Singh advised that being aware of the local limitation period is very important in the transaction. Mr. Ajinderpal Singh also shared practical insights on clauses relating to warranties by the seller, fraudulent misrepresentation, seller's limitation of liability, and notice period.

Panel Session III: Assessment of Damages in Construction Disputes

The last session of the conference was moderated by Mr. Chong Yee Leong (Member of SIAC Board of Directors). The panel members were Mr. Tony Budidjaja (Managing Partner of Budidjaja International Lawyers), Mr. Rob Palmer (Office Managing Partner of Ashurst LLP), and Mr. James Taylor (Senior Managing Director of FTI Consulting).

Mr. Taylor explained that typical causes of construction disputes generally include, among others, variation order, suspension of work, defective works, and payment delay. Mr. Palmer then explained the concept of concurrent delay in a construction project. In the Indonesian context, it can be contractually agreed by the parties to "share the risk". Finally, Mr. Budidjdja commented that the use of experts on the subject matter is needed because construction disputes are generally highly technical in nature and may require intensive fact-investigation. He also emphasised that the quality of the expert report will determine the speed of the arbitration proceedings.

The interesting and very informative conference concluded with brief closing remarks from Mr Chong.

24 June 2019
SIAC – SHCCIE Seminar 2019
By John Liu, Senior Partner, AllBright Law Offices

The SIAC – SHCCIE Seminar 2019 was titled “Advancing the BRI: Navigating the Legal Landscape”, and attracted around 50 practitioners, in-house counsel and professionals.

Ms. Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) opened the session, reporting the outstanding performance of SIAC in 2018, as well as its excellent people (the SIAC Court of Arbitration and the SIAC Secretariat) and the state-of-the-art hearing facilities in Maxwell Chambers. Mr. Tony Zhang (Deputy Chairman, Shanghai Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export (“SHCCIE”)) followed with the opening address. He first reported the recent achievements and developments of the SHCCIE and then expressed the hope of continuing future event collaborations with SIAC.

Panel Session : Managing the Legal Risks and Use of Effective Dispute Resolution for BRI Investments

Dr. Li Shen (Chief Legal Officer, Noah Holdings) began with a speech titled “Private Equity Fund Investment Mode and Legal Risk Control in BRI Investment”. He introduced the advantages of PE investment, including the advantages of information in the industry sector, reducing the political risks of investment, broadening the channels of fund raising, and providing professional technology for mergers and acquisitions. He also stressed the risks in private equity investment, such as the short-term and medium-term risks of debt of leveraged buyouts, insider trading and the related moral risks, and the risks of the capital operations of the acquired enterprises. After that, he further emphasized the importance of selecting an internationally well-regarded arbitration institution, as the arbitration awards issued by a reputable arbitral institution are more likely to be recognized and enforced by other contracting States of the New York Convention.

Mr. David Gu (Partner, Tiantong Law Firm) then delivered a presentation titled “Introduction to International Arbitration for Chinese Enterprises: Arbitration Institutions, Arbitration Clauses and Arbitrators”. Mr. Gu gave a brief introduction to relevant aspects of international arbitration, in which the importance of selecting arbitrators was highlighted, as well as strategies and tips in the selection process. He also emphasized that parties should pay attention to the selection of arbitration institutions, the update of the rules of arbitration institutions and the constitution of arbitral tribunals. With regard to drafting of the dispute resolution clause, reference could be made to the model clauses of arbitration institutions.

Mr. John Liu (Senior Partner, AllBright Law Offices) spoke on the topic “Risk Prevention in Overseas Investments by Chinese Enterprises”. He pointed out that risk prevention could be divided into three levels. The first level is prevention in advance, namely compliance framework. If an enterprise completes compliance framework at an early stage, it could better avoid risks later. The second level is in-process prevention, which means the prevention awareness of relevant issues in the process, especially in the process of international trade. When encountering problems or potential risks, companies should work out how to respond. The third level is the post-event remedy. When disputes occur, companies should actively seek professional advice to resolve the disputes. The Chinese enterprises which go abroad should pay more attention to risk prevention.

After that, Mr. Nicholas Lum, Partner of Ince (Shanghai/Singapore offices) spoke on “The Notion of International Commercial Arbitration to Chinese Companies: Demystifying the Myths and Bridging the Cultural and Legal Differences”. He shared with the audience three (3) key points that Chinese companies need to keep in mind when “going out” and embarking on BRI projects. First, Chinese companies should be careful about using modest / non-confrontational tones (or not respond at all) as that may, at law, be argued to be behaviour viewed as concession or admission of fault, when there has clearly been no such intention at all. It was crucial to ensure that positions are properly set out and a proper paper trail established from the outset. Second, during the disclosure process in international arbitration, all evidence deemed relevant to the proceedings had to be disclosed, notwithstanding that such evidence may be adverse to one’s own case. This process has to be properly explained to Chinese companies, which may not be used to the same. Finally, the cross-examination of factual witnesses and experts in international arbitrations is a crucial part of a hearing - this is again quite different from a typical court or arbitration hearing in mainland China, and should be brought to the attention of Chinese companies.

Mr. Tony Zhang (Senior Partner, Co-effort Law Firm) gave a presentation on “Considerations for Selecting the Seat of Arbitration”. He pointed out that there are many legal, technical and procedural issues involved when choosing the seat of arbitration. The seat of arbitration determines the national court that has power to order interim measures in support of the arbitration, determine challenges of arbitrators and set aside the award, etc. During an arbitration, more attention should be paid to issues such as challenges of arbitrators and disclosure of challenge decisions. Therefore, he highly recommended arbitration institutions to disclose such information so as to ensure the transparency and fairness of the arbitration process.

Ms. Jianying Liu (Deputy Head (China), SIAC) moderated a panel comprising Mr. David Gu, Mr. John Liu, Mr. Nicolas Lum and Mr. Tony Zhang. The panelists shared valuable insights on dealing with disputes arising out of cross-border investments. Mr. Gu said that large companies should build a robust team with professional in-house counsel to deal with arbitration cases instead of entirely relying on outside attorneys. Mr. Liu emphasized that enterprises needed to pay more attention to the selection of arbitrators and drafting of arbitration clauses, equip themselves with more knowledge and skills to be fully prepared for unforeseen challenges. Mr. Lum advised that in-house counsel of Chinese companies should take note of pertinent clauses in cross-border contracts (governed by common law) which may be interpreted differently from what one would expect under the Chinese civil law regime. In the event that a matter resulted in a dispute, Mr. Lum stressed that it was vital that suitable steps be taken (whether strategic or legal in nature) to try and resolve it promptly, which would no doubt result in a saving of time and costs for parties. Mr. Zhang indicated that as the world of international arbitration is a professional playing field,practitioners experienced in arbitration should be engaged to represent the parties in an international arbitration case.

Mr Leo Liu Rundong, Deputy Head (China), SIAC concluded the event with brief closing remarks.

6 June 2019
SIAC Announces Appointment of New Court Members

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce the appointment of new members to its Court of Arbitration.

Fourteen new members have been appointed to SIAC's Court of Arbitration, which continues under the leadership of Mr Gary Born as its President. The new Court members are:

	1.	Mr John P. Bang – Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, South Korea
	2.	Ms Yas Banifatemi – Shearman & Sterling, France
	3.	Ms Julie Bedard – Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates, USA
	4.	Mr K. Minh Dang – YKVN, Vietnam
	5.	Ms Jessica Fei – King & Wood Mallesons, China
	6.	Mr Eri Hertiawan – Assegaf Hamzah & Partners, Indonesia
	7.	Mr Tejas Karia – Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., India
	8.	Mr Fernando Mantilla-Serrano – Latham & Watkins LLP, France
	9.	Ms K. Shanti Mogan – Shearn Delamore & Co., Malaysia
	10.	Ms Shaneen Parikh – Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, India
	11.	Mr Philippe Pinsolle – Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Switzerland
	12.	Mr Michael E. Schneider – Lalive, Switzerland
	13.	Ms Abby Cohen Smutny – White & Case LLP, USA
	14.	Mr Thomas Snider – Al Tamimi & Co., UAE

SIAC would like to express its heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the three outgoing Court members, Mr Paul Friedland, Mr Emmanuel Gaillard, and Mr Jan Paulsson, as well as the outgoing Board member, Mr Nishith Desai, for their dedication, commitment and unstinting support. During their term of service, SIAC achieved a number of significant milestones, notably its ranking as the 3rd most preferred arbitral institution in the world in the prestigious Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey, which underscores its position as the most preferred arbitral institution in Asia.

SIAC's Board of Directors continues under the chairmanship of Mr Davinder Singh, SC, who commented, “I would like to thank our outgoing director, Nishith, for his invaluable contributions to SIAC. I am delighted to be working again with Gary, my fellow Board members and the team at SIAC to continue to deliver the highest levels of service and innovation to users all over the world.”

Mr Gary Born said of the new Court appointments, “We are indebted to our outgoing Court members, Emmanuel, Jan and Paul, for their hard work and tremendous contributions. It is a great pleasure to be working again with Davinder, the Court and the SIAC team. I extend a warm welcome to our new Court members whose illustrious reputations and stature in the international arbitration community and deep specialist knowledge across diverse legal systems and cultures will ensure that SIAC remains at the forefront of cutting-edge developments in the law and practice of commercial as well as investment arbitration.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are extremely grateful to the Board and the Court for their extraordinary efforts and contributions in putting SIAC firmly on the world map, and wish to express our special thanks to Davinder and Gary for their visionary, and truly inspirational, leadership and guidance. With their wealth of experience and unmatched dynamism, we are confident that SIAC will burnish its standing as a global leader in dispute resolution services.”

The members of SIAC's Board of Directors are as follows:

	1.	Mr Davinder Singh, SC – Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, Singapore (Chairman)
	2.	Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC – Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice), Singapore (Deputy Chairman)
	3.	Mr Chong Yee Leong – Allen & Gledhill LLP, Singapore
	4.	Mr David Liu – Jun He Law Offices, China
	5.	Mr Rajiv K Luthra – L&L Partners (formerly Luthra & Luthra Law Offices), India
	6.	Dr Michael Moser – 20 Essex Street, Hong Kong SAR
	7.	Mr Chelva R. Rajah, SC – Tan Rajah & Cheah, Singapore
	8.	Mr Tham Sai Choy – Singapore

The members of SIAC's Court of Arbitration are as follows:

	1.	Mr Gary Born – Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, UK (President)
	2.	Dr Michael Pryles AO PBM – Melbourne, Australia (Founder President)
	3.	Mr Cavinder Bull, SC – Drew & Napier LLC, Singapore (Vice President)
	4.	Prof Lucy Reed – Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore, Singapore (Vice President)
	5.	Ms Catherine Amirfar – Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, USA
	6.	Dr Claudia Annacker – Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, France
	7.	Mr John P. Bang – Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, South Korea
	8.	Ms Yas Banifatemi – Shearman & Sterling, France
	9.	Ms Julie Bedard – Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Affiliates, USA
	10.	Mr Nigel Blackaby – Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, USA
	11.	Prof Lawrence Boo – The Arbitration Chambers, Singapore
	12.	Mr Cao Lijun – Zhong Lun Law Firm, China
	13.	Mr K. Minh Dang – YKVN, Vietnam
	14.	Ms Jessica Fei – King & Wood Mallesons, China
	15.	Prof Bernard Hanotiau – Hanotiau & van den Berg, Belgium
	16.	Mr Eri Hertiawan – Assegaf Hamzah & Partners, Indonesia
	17.	Mr Tejas Karia – Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., India
	18.	Mr Darius Khambata, SC – India
	19.	Mr Toby Landau QC – Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) and Essex Court Chambers (London), Singapore and UK
	20.	Mr Fernando Mantilla-Serrano – Latham & Watkins LLP, France
	21.	Ms K. Shanti Mogan – Shearn Delamore & Co., Malaysia
	22.	Ms Shaneen Parikh – Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, India
	23.	Dr Eun Young Park – Kim & Chang, South Korea
	24.	Mr Philippe Pinsolle – Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Switzerland
	25.	Mr Harish Salve, SC – Blackstone Chambers, India
	26.	Mr John Savage QC – King & Spalding LLP, UK
	27.	Mr Michael E. Schneider – Lalive, Switzerland
	28.	Ms Abby Cohen Smutny – White & Case LLP, USA
	29.	Mr Thomas Snider – Al Tamimi & Co., UAE
	30.	Mr Hiroyuki Tezuka – Nishimura & Asahi, Japan
	31.	Mr Alan Thambiayah – The Arbitration Chambers, Singapore
	32.	Ms Ariel Ye – King & Wood Mallesons, China
	33.	Mr Alvin Yeo, SC – WongPartnership LLP, Singapore

For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

4 June 2019
SIAC-Japan Association of Arbitrators Tokyo (JAA) Conference 2019
By Stephanie Cameron and Yudai Nagaishi, Ashurst LLP

The theme of the 2019 SIAC-JAA Tokyo Conference was "Perils and Precautions in Complex Disputes: Navigating Multiple Contracts, Multiple Parties and Multiple Proceedings".

The conference opened with a welcome address by Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) who energetically outlined why the 21st century in arbitration will be "the century of Asia". She noted that Japan in particular is an economic powerhouse, and that with Japanese investments and projects across all corners of the globe, there is a need for a dispute resolution process that is not only fast paced, but which also provides quality and efficiency. She suggested that SIAC is well placed to provide this service, given that it is currently the preferred arbitral institution in Asia – and SIAC is committed to continuing to provide arbitral service with a personal touch.

Mr Chan Leng Sun SC (Deputy Chairman, SIAC Board of Directors; Senior Counsel and Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers Duxton) delivered an opening address with a reference to a quote inspired by the popular TV show, Game of Thrones: "We can only help people from a position of strength, and a position of strength comes from cooperation". He noted that the Memorandum of Understanding between SIAC and JAA is a step in the direction of achieving such cooperation, and is also a strong commitment to continuing to have conferences and training programs in both Japan and Singapore, in an effort to ensure there is a trusted system available to parties in order to resolve complex disputes.

The second opening address was delivered by Mr Yoshimasa Furuta (Managing Director, JAA; Partner, Anderson Mori & Tomotsune), who summarised some of the key developments in recent years in relation to international arbitration in Japan. These developments include the launch of the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (JIDRC) in Osaka in May 2018, the establishment of the Japan International Mediation Center (JIMC) in Kyoto, and the commitment to establish another hearing venue in Tokyo by March 2020. He also noted JAA's commitment to continuing to leverage international dispute resolution opportunities in Japan.

Panel Session I: Drafting Precautions into the Contract

The first panel of the day addressed the topic "Drafting Precautions into the Contract" and was moderated by Mr Gai Matsushita (Partner, Innoventier LPC). The panellists were Mr Chong Yee Leong (Member, SIAC Board of Directors; Partner, Allen & Gledhill LLP), Mr Ronnie King (Managing Partner, Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo), Mr Zachary Sharpe (Partner, Jones Day) and Ms Masako Takahata (General Counsel, Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation).

This session had a particular focus on transactions giving rise to a risk of parallel proceedings, and how for clients, a big risk is incurring large costs running parallel proceedings that may all be dealing with the same few issues related to one project. The panellists noted that a major benefit of SIAC arbitration is the joinder and consolidation provisions, however they noted that there was some scope for discussion around the meaning of "compatible" in the context of the SIAC rule permitting consolidation. Rule 8.1(c) of the SIAC Rules 2016 provides that one of the grounds under which proceedings may be consolidated is if the arbitration agreements are “compatible,” among other requirements.

During discussions, Mr Matsushita raised an interesting question: "What should be done if parties cannot agree on the seat of the arbitration?" This prompted some useful observations from the panellists. Mr Sharpe noted that often the client is actually more concerned about the venue of the hearing, and not the seat, and that therefore the parties could discuss holding the arbitration in a location that is different to the seat of the arbitration. Mr King noted that the parties could leave this issue silent, noting that the 2016 SIAC Rules provide that if the parties have not agreed on the seat then the Tribunal will make a determination. Mr Chong raised a logistical point, that some seats do not allow foreign arbitrators to work – and therefore this is an important factor to consider. Finally, Ms Takahata noted that from an in-house counsel point of view, having a favourable seat is the most important aspect of the arbitration agreement.

Panel Session II: Can I Resolve my Dispute in a Single Forum? Procedural Tools and Strategic Considerations

Panel Session II was moderated by Mr Hiroyuki Tezuka (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Executive Director, JAA; Partner, Nishimura & Asahi).

The panellists were Mr Christopher Chuah (Partner, and Head – Infrastructure, Construction & Engineering Practice, WongPartnership LLP), Mr Kap-You (Kevin) Kim (Partner, Bae, Kim & Lee LLC) and Ms Elaine Wong (Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills GJBJ).

In this session, Mr Chuah first briefly presented on the basic concepts related to parallel proceedings under the SIAC Rules and the approach to "res judicata" from both the English law and civil law perspectives. Mr Kim and Ms Wong then elaborated on issues related to parallel proceedings. Mr Kim focused on joinder and consolidation proceedings and arbitrator appointments, and explained how joinder and consolidation can affect the existing arbitration proceedings depending on the timing of an application for joinder. Ms Wong explained how common procedural tools such as bifurcation, stays, and anti-suit injunctions can be used, with reference to the model law requirement.

In the discussion, one of the questions raised was "what happens if a third party requesting to join (a joinder party) proposes to the existing parties that the existing parties consent to the joinder in exchange for the joinder party waiving its right to seek revocation by the Court of arbitrators appointed prior to joinder?" Mr Kim noted that it is actually a common tactics that he uses when he represents a joinder party. Mr Kim added that the existing parties usually tend to accept such a proposal. He stated that before seeking to negotiate such a position, the joinder party should carefully consider the potential impact that such a waiver could have.

Panel Session III: Minimizing Perils in Parallel Proceedings

Panel Session III was moderated by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC.

The panellists were Mr Lars Markert (Partner, Nishimura & Asahi), Mr Junya Naito (Partner, Momo-o, Matsuo & Namba), Mr Iain Potter (Director, MDD Forensic Accountants, Singapore), Mr Farhad Sorabjee (Partner, J. Sagar Associates) and Mr Ing Loong Yang (Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP).

In this session, the panellists focused on discussing parallel proceedings in the context of the same or similar claims being dealt with by different courts or arbitral tribunals, as opposed to the claims being heard in a single forum (which was the focus of Panel Session II).

Mr Naito explained how confidentiality under arbitration proceedings is well protected, especially when compared with Japanese court proceedings. He noted that all proceedings and court records in a Japanese court proceeding are in effect open to the public.

Mr Yang focused on the problems arising out of res judicata. He explained that res judicata between the same sort of proceedings (court vs court or arbitral tribunal vs arbitral tribunal) can be dealt with consistently, but that there is no consistent approach at the international level to resolve issues of res judicata between a court and a tribunal. This was an interesting observation and made us wonder whether a unified approach should be established at the international level.

Mr Markert introduced "guerrilla tactics" in international arbitrations and emphasized that the multi-jurisdictional nature of international arbitration makes it difficult to find a "one size fits all" approach and that possible options should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Sorabjee explained how the risk of parallel proceedings in India could be minimized. He noted that specifically excluding some of the provisions of Indian arbitration law in the arbitration clause would be sensible to avoid multiplicity and delay by the Indian courts.

Finally, Mr Potter presented on the key considerations for quantum. He noted that changes in the factual matrix should be carefully considered when dealing with parallel proceedings.

4 June 2019
SIAC Signs Memoranda of Understanding with the Japan Association of Arbitrators and the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the Japan Association of Arbitrators (JAA) and the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (JIDRC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.

Both MOUs were entered into during a signing ceremony on 4 June 2019 at the SIAC-JAA Tokyo Conference 2019.

The MOU between SIAC and JAA was signed by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Akira Kawamura, President of JAA. During the signing ceremony, Ms Lim signed the MOU on behalf of SIAC, and Mr Yoshimasa Furuta, an Executive Director of JAA, affixed the JAA seal to the MOU. The signing ceremony was witnessed by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Deputy Chairman of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Chong Yee Leong, Member of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Nozomu Ohara, Vice President of JAA; and Mr Hiroyuki Tezuka, an Executive Director of JAA.

The MOU between SIAC and JIDRC was signed by Ms Lim Seok Hui and Mr Yoshimitsu Aoyama, the Representative Board Member of JIDRC. During the signing ceremony, Ms Lim signed the MOU on behalf of SIAC, and Mr Nozomu Ohara, Board Member of JIDRC, affixed the JIDRC seal to the MOU. The signing ceremony was witnessed by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Deputy Chairman of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Chong Yee Leong, Member of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Yoshimasa Furuta, Deputy Secretary General of JIDRC, and Ms Chieko Tsuchiya, Deputy Secretary General of JIDRC.

Under the MOUs, SIAC will work with each of JAA and JIDRC to jointly promote international arbitration through co-organising conferences, seminars, workshops and training programmes on international arbitration in Japan and Singapore.

Mr Akira Kawamura, President of JAA, said, "We are pleased to deepen our ties with SIAC through this MOU, and firmly believe that this collaboration marks an important milestone in our continued efforts to jointly promote the benefits of international arbitration to the legal and business communities in Japan."

Mr Yoshimitsu Aoyama, Representative Board Member of JIDRC, said, “We look forward to working closely with SIAC to make international arbitration the preferred form of dispute resolution for Japanese companies and businesses to resolve their cross-border commercial and investment disputes with enhanced efficiency, expedition and enforceability.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “SIAC is honoured and delighted to be able to contribute to the growth of the international arbitration community in Japan, which is a top foreign user of SIAC. Our partnerships with JAA and JIDRC will provide an excellent platform both to promote the law and practice of international arbitration to Japanese users as well as to nurture and develop the next generation of international arbitration experts in Japan.”


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

27 May 2019
SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Shanghai International Arbitration Center

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.

The MOU was signed on 24 May 2019 at the inaugural Singapore-Shanghai Comprehensive Cooperation Council meeting, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Ma Yi, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of SHIAC. The signing was witnessed by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Deputy Prime Minister and Minster for Finance, Singapore; Mr Ying Yong, Mayor of Shanghai; Mr Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law and Health, Singapore; and Mr Xu Kunlin, Vice Mayor of Shanghai.

Under the MOU, SIAC and SHIAC will work together to jointly promote international arbitration to serve the needs of businesses. SIAC and SHIAC will co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in China and Singapore, and will invite key members of their local arbitration community to attend and participate in major events organised by SIAC in Shanghai or by SHIAC in Singapore.

Both institutions will, upon request and where appropriate, provide recommendations of arbitrators to each other, and will, upon request, conduct training programmes for each other’s staff.

Mr Ma Yi, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of SHIAC, said, “Singapore and Shanghai are both leading international financial and legal services hubs. We are confident that this MOU will provide a springboard for both institutions to jointly develop “best-in-class” dispute resolution services in response to the evolving needs of users in China and other Belt & Road economies.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, commented, “We are delighted to be entering into this partnership with SHIAC, and look forward to further strengthening our ties with key stakeholders in the Chinese legal and business communities through this collaboration, to make international arbitration the preferred mode of dispute resolution for Chinese parties.”


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

22 May 2019
YSIAC Club event: What are the challenges to the growth of arbitration in Singapore in the upcoming decade?
By Lee Chia Ming, Senior Associate, Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

It was only fitting that the YSIAC marked its first YSIAC Club event of 2019 by tackling the question on the minds of many members of the arbitration community: What are the challenges to the growth of arbitration in Singapore in the upcoming decade?

The event kicked off with a warm welcome from Benson Lim (Member of the YSIAC Committee; Senior Associate, Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee). In line with the purpose of a YSIAC Club event, the moderator and panellists were all younger members of the arbitration community. True to form, panel moderator Adriana Uson (Member of the YSIAC Committee; Associate, Norton Rose Fulbright) kept things lively and youthful by asking each panellist to describe how they would introduce themselves on Twitter, leading to much laughter and amusement all round.

Adriana swiftly moved on to outline Singapore’s position as the 3rd most popular seat of arbitration and the country’s key strengths. She began the discussion proper by asking panellists how much further Singapore could improve and their thoughts on the future of arbitration in Singapore.

Taking up the invitation, panellist Matthew Brown (Senior Associate, Clifford Chance Asia) spoke on the increasingly diverse options in Singapore, although he cautioned that Singapore ought not to take its privileged status for granted. Matthew highlighted the International Commercial Court in Singapore as an example of Singapore’s status as an international dispute resolution hub and how this was part of a worldwide trend. Other instances across the world abound: the Paris International Commercial Court which permits experienced English commercial judges to apply English law, specialist courts such as the Frankfurt specialist financial chamber, and the XiAn International Commercial Court set up in view of BRI projects.

Matthew also assessed what the SICC meant as an alternative option to SIAC arbitration. While the SICC helped to grow the pie for Singapore, it would to some extent compete with SIAC since both deal with international judges and foreign laws. As court decisions are public, there might be a perception that the SICC would apply the law more rigorously than an arbitral tribunal. Nevertheless, arbitration also retains strong advantages, such as the ease of enforceability of awards in other countries under the New York Convention, the right to party-appointed arbitrators, and perceived neutrality of the tribunal.

Kevin Elbert (Associate, TSMP Law Corporation) expanded on how the suite of dispute resolution options in Singapore—namely SIAC, SICC, and SIMC—were particularly useful in the context of IPTMT practice, where relief in domestic courts could be limited. He also mentioned possible future changes to the International Arbitration Act that would permit a party to appeal to the Singapore Courts on a point of law, following the approach of jurisdictions such as Hong Kong. As a true blue IP-TMT lawyer, Kevin highlighted that at the end of the day how Singapore decides to take itself forward would depend on “what USP it is trying to sell” to its end users.

Chiming in on this note, Pauline Low (Associate Counsel, SIAC) pointed out that arbitration no longer stands alone nowadays. Rather, hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms are being seen with increasing frequency, particularly in the context of BRI disputes. Pauline also noted that the Arb-Med-Arb procedure in arbitration had an advantage over mediation, primarily because the former meant that a standing tribunal would be ready to decide the dispute if no settlement could be reached.

The next topic of extensive discussion related to a notorious feature of arbitration: high costs. All the speakers recognised that expanding costs are a real bugbear for arbitration users. Often, costs are exacerbated due to the tendency of arbitrators to err on the side of permissiveness so as to safeguard against an award being set aside.

In this context, Roger Milburn (Investment Manager, Litigation Capital Management) shed light on the third party funding scene in Singapore arbitrations. Roger explained that while third party funding is theoretically available to any Singapore-seated arbitration, in reality funders typically have a strict screening process—Litigation Capital Management themselves only take on about 4-5% of potential cases globally! The funder’s main concern is retaining its investment. However, it is also a concern whether, even if the client ultimately prevails in arbitration, the funders would recover very little after funders’ costs and lawyers’ costs are paid out. On this note, Pauline helpfully brought attention to the SIAC 2017 Practice Note which permits the Tribunal to take into account any third-party funding arrangements in apportioning the costs of the arbitration.

The panel then moved on to engage with audience questions, such as whether trade wars are good for arbitration (short answer: on balance the cynical lawyer would say yes to more disputes!) and how Singapore plans to become a seat beyond the region. In this regard, the panellists were unequivocal about Singapore’s competitive strengths as a seat. These include its neutrality, integrity, and the responsive and fast-paced amendment of legislation that brings Singapore in line with international best practices for arbitration. Examples of this adaptability include third party funding, early dismissal of claims, and expedited arbitration procedures. While other countries beyond the region might pose competition, Singapore’s robust court system and nimble legislation would be difficult to replicate.

Following the intellectual download, we all adjourned for much anticipated refreshments and a time of networking. It was a natural and wonderful end to a refreshing evening (no pun intended) during which we heard perspectives shared from younger members of the international arbitration community and had much-needed lateral discussions. It was particularly helpful that the points canvassed looked not only to challenges posed by other countries to Singapore in the future of arbitration, but also fleshed out the interplay of SIAC arbitration with other modes of dispute resolution in international courts (including our very own SICC), mediation, and hybrid dispute resolution mechanisms.

It will certainly be interesting to look back, in a decade’s time, on the evening’s discussions and predictions!

2 May 2019
SIAC Announces the Appointment of New Head (North East Asia)



The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that Ms Michele Park Sonen has been appointed to the position of Head (North East Asia). Ms Sonen succeeds Ms Seah Lee who has left SIAC to pursue other career opportunities.

As Head (North East Asia), Michele will be based in Seoul, South Korea, and will oversee SIAC’s activities in South Korea and Japan.

Prior to joining SIAC, Michele worked in the international dispute resolution practice of a leading law firm in Seoul, where she focused on international commercial arbitration. Ms Sonen is qualified as an attorney in the United States, and she previously served as law clerk to a federal appeals court judge and a federal district court judge in the United States.

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are delighted to welcome Michele to the SIAC team. Her experience in both common law and civil law jurisdictions will allow her to bring a very useful perspective as she discharges her duties. We look forward to working with Michele to deepen and broaden our engagement with key stakeholders in the international arbitration community in South Korea and Japan.”


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

27 April 2019
YSIAC Advocacy Workshop, Bengaluru
By Dhanush. M, Associate, AZB & Partners

On the morning of April 27, 2019, eminent members of the arbitration bar and enthusiasts alike converged to master oral advocacy skills at the YSIAC arbitration workshop organised under the aegis of SIAC in Bengaluru, India. The Workshop was designed to provide a deeper understanding of the nuances involved in arbitration cross-examination proceedings by bringing several experienced arbitration practitioners together. The Workshop material given to the participants consisted of a mock factual scenario and two witness statements on behalf of the Claimant and the Respondent.

The Workshop kicked off with a welcome address by Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC), where she welcomed the audience to the workshop and expressed her special gratitude to the YSIAC Committee members. Many of these members had flown in from different corners of the country and the world to participate in the workshop. Ms Lim highlighted that the fact that 1000 members of the 3288 members of YSIAC were from India was a testament to the important role of India in the growth of SIAC.

Thereafter, Mr. Lomesh Kiran (Partner, Indus Law and a YSIAC Committee member) briefly introduced the factual scenario: the Government of Indonesia had released a tender for developing a nuclear power plant in Indonesia. This was secured by the Royal Istana Constructors Corporation of Indonesia as developers (the Claimant) in April 2015. The tender required the Claimant to complete the plant by March 2017. The Claimant, through a contract, secured the services of Nucleus Energy group of the United Kingdom as contractors (the Respondent) for the construction of the plant. The Plant was completed and commissioned only in August 2017. The Claimant then commenced arbitration proceedings in Singapore with SIAC, claiming damages of 6 million dollars for the delay and rescission of the contract for misrepresentation. The Respondent counterclaimed 5 million dollars.

The underlying contract did not envisage a timetable for the completion of the project. The Claimant alleged that, during the negotiations, the Respondent had assured the Claimant that the plant would be completed in 12 months from January 8, 2016, as the Respondent could divert many of the parts from the power plant projects it had discontinued in Algeria. The parts were currently stored in Texas and as such were already fabricated, and were only required to be shipped and assembled at the site in Indonesia.

The Claimant alleged that the Respondent never had any plant components that were already fabricated and ready to be shipped as of January 8, 2016. The Respondent denied that it had made any representations as to the timeline for completion, and that it had always made clear that any discussion about the timeline was only indicative, because the nuclear plant parts had to be significantly modified or re-fabricated in order to suit the site in Indonesia.

With the abovementioned factual background as the reference point, the workshop provided for a mock cross-examination of factual witnesses by many leading counsel, which was presided over by a three-member Tribunal. The Tribunal was comprised of Mr. Dhyan Chinappa (Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court), Mr. C.K Nandakumar (Advocate, Law Chambers of C.K Nandakumar) and Mr. Prakash Pillai (Partner, Clyde & Co Clasis Singapore).

The first session involved cross-examination by the Respondent's Counsel, played by Mr. Nikhilesh Rao, (Partner, Khaitan & Co) and Ms Sonali Mathur (Partner, AZB &Partners and a YSIAC Committer Member). They questioned the Claimant`s witnesses, played by Ms. Sneha Nagraj (Partner, Frontier Legal) and Mr. Karthikey Mahajan (Associate, Kirkland & Ellis LLP and a YSIAC Committee Member).

The line of questions framed by counsel for the Respondents was intended to elicit response in respect of the following:- (i) whether the claimant was cognisant of the difficult geographical conditions prevailing in Indonesia, making it impossible for the Respondent to complete the plant within the period of one year; (ii) the factual basis of the Claimant’s statement that the Respondent had assured the Claimants of completing the nuclear power plant within twelve months; (iii) whether the Claimant could terminate the contract after the terms of the contract were fulfilled i.e.,the nuclear plant was completed; and (iv) whether the Claimant was cognizant of the labour strike which impeded the Respondent from completing his contract.

The second session involved cross-examination by Claimant`s counsel, played by Mr. Bharat Chugh (Partner Designate, L& L Partners Law Offices and a YSIAC Committee Member) and Mr. Ian de Vaz (Partner, Wong Partnership LLP). They directed their queries to the Respondent`s witnesses, played by Mr Ian Lewis (Advocate, Karnataka High Court) and Mr. Vikas Mahendra (Partner, Keystone Partners).

The line of questioning put forth by the Claimant’s counsel in cross-examination was intended to elicit response in respect of the following:- (i) whether the Respondent had undertaken an assessment of the technical feasibility of the parts of the nuclear reactor which were intended to be moved to Indonesia; (ii) whether there was any correspondence on record by the Respondent that highlighted the need to modify parts of the power plant stored in Texas to suit the local conditions in Indonesia; (iii) whether the power plant was commissioned on the scheduled date; (iii) whether the Respondent had taken steps to verify the technical feasibility of the parts of the power plant stored in Texas; (iv) whether the reasons for delay in completion of the power plant were attributable to the Respondent; and (v) whether there was any correspondence by the Respondent enquiring about the counterclaims, prior to the issuance of the arbitration notice.

Thereafter, the members of the Tribunal held a panel discussion, where they elaborated on the steps involved in conducting a successful cross-examination. Mr. C.K Nanadakumar emphasised the importance of having mastery over the facts of the case as the hallmark of a good cross-examiner.

Mr. Dhyan Chinappa stressed the need to “think through the case” – which would invariably provide new insights on the case at one`s disposal. He also emphasised that it was imperative that cross-examiners create an environment of trust with the witness in order to elicit relevant facts.

Mr. Prakash Pillai emphasised that cross-examination was more about the “don’ts” than the “do’s”. Mr. Pillai that one should refrain from open-ended questions, where the witness can deftly deviate from the questions he is required to answer. Instead, one should endeavour to frame close-ended questions, where the witness is bound to reply with a “Yes” or a “No”. Mr. Pillai concluded the panel discussion by highlighting that one should not over-estimate the importance of cross-examination with regards to the final outcome of the arbitral proceedings as it is only a tool to disprove the case of one's opponent. Arbitrations are won or lost on the strength of one's own case.

The workshop was well received by the Indian legal and business community and attracted more than 50 delegates, comprising practicing lawyers, in-house counsel, students and academics.

24 April 2019
Arbitration Speed Conferencing with SIAC and DIS
By Derric Yeoh, Associate, Schellenberg Wittmer (Singapore)

On 24 April 2019, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the German Institute of Arbitration (DIS) held Arbitration Speed Conferencing at Maxwell Chambers. The event aimed to give participants an insight into the distinct elements of the 2018 Arbitral Rules – the “DIS Rules” – as well as bring together arbitration practitioners from Singapore and Germany. The “speed conferencing” aspect of the afternoon entailed the organisation of participants into four groups. Speakers and moderators rotated between these groups, discussing four concepts of international arbitration: the burden of proof in document production, the facilitation of settlement in arbitrations, expert management, and ex parte interim relief granted by the arbitral tribunal. Over 70 attendees from law firms, arbitral institutions, and private companies gathered as the event begun.

Dr Christopher Boog, partner and vice-chair of Schellenberg Wittmer, opened by expressing his hope that this event would foster dialogue between practitioners of different legal backgrounds, leading to improved arbitration practices in both Singapore and Germany. The format of a speed conference facilitated this goal of intimate collaboration as participants were able to actively interact with all the speakers and moderators – including Mr Peter Wolrich (Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Paris), Dr Peter Heckel (an independent arbitrator), Ms Lijun Chui (Clifford Chance Asia, Singapore), and Ms Gerui Lim (Drew & Napier LLC, Singapore).

Both Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO of SIAC) and Ms Francesca Mazza (Secretary General of the DIS) shared the innovations and statistics of their respective institutions in their opening remarks. Ms Lim Seok Hui described the arbitration community’s warm reception of SIAC’s expedited procedure, while Ms Francesca Mazza shared a DIS-developed remedy to a pattern she often observed during arbitration proceedings. Often, parties wanted to settle the matter but found it was not conducive to do so once the arbitration had commenced. She illustrated this sentiment of the parties with a quote from the film, “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”:

“There must have been a moment, at the beginning, where we could have said – no. But somehow we missed it.”

Ms Francesca Mazza explained that the DIS had addressed this problem through Article 26 of the DIS Rules, which states that “Unless any party objects thereto, the arbitral tribunal shall, at every stage of the arbitration, seek to encourage an amicable settlement of the dispute or of individual disputed issues.”

Mr Peter Wolrich and Dr Peter Heckel continued to speak about the DIS Rules, outlining some of their unique civil law aspects. A particularly striking feature was in relation to Annex 3 of the Rules, which described the arbitral tribunal’s ability to provide a preliminary non-binding assessment of factual and legal issues in the arbitration. This promotes a settlement as parties can ascertain the strength of their cases. If the parties decide against settling, the preliminary assessment remains a useful tool for parties to prepare their submissions – they can tailor their submissions to address the concerns of the arbitral tribunal expressed in the assessment.

After discussing the DIS Rules, the four groups split away and dove into specific topics of discussion as the speed conferencing portion of the afternoon began.

Burden of proof and document production issues

Participants engaged with Peter Wolrich regarding the burden of proof in document production, speaking about how, in most legal jurisdictions, the party asserting the claim shoulders the burden of proof. However, in instances of medical malpractice where the doctor possesses almost all of the relevant documents, some civil law jurisdictions allow for the burden of proof to be shifted to the doctor. Other common law jurisdictions accommodate this issue by broadening the scope of document production requests.

The facilitation of settlement in arbitrations

In a discussion about the facilitation of settlement of arbitrations in Article 26 of the DIS Rules, Dr Peter Heckel said it was particularly difficult to show the counsel and parties that a settlement was possible even at a later stage of arbitration. He illustrated the feasibility of a high rate of settlement by giving an example of a Frankfurt judge, one who had not tried any cases for the past few years given his effectiveness in promoting settlements. Dr Peter Heckel also observed from his personal experience that parties often reached a point where they were more willing to settle than their lawyers were.

Participants expressed concerns that parties could possibly exploit the preliminary assessment by the arbitral tribunal intended to facilitate settlement – Annex 3 of the DIS Rules – as evidence of the tribunal’s partiality and bias. However, Dr Peter Heckel explained that this was unlikely in reality, especially if the arbitral tribunal was careful in their presentation of assessments.

Expert management

Ms Lijun Chui moderated the discussion on expert management – specifically in relation to Article 27.7 of the DIS Rules. This article states that “In the first case management conference or, if necessary, in additional case management conferences, the arbitral tribunal shall discuss with the parties whether to employ experts and, if so, how to conduct the expert procedure efficiently.” The participants came to the consensus that it was better to have the parties and the tribunal agree on the numbers of experts at the outset of negotiations. This would ensure that the timetable for the arbitration would not be disrupted by the need to appoint new experts throughout the process.

Throughout the discussions of tribunal-appointed experts, a discrepancy between the lawyers emerged. Civil law lawyers were accustomed to the idea while common law lawyers found the notion a foreign one.

Ex parte interim relief

The final discussion centred around Article 25 of the DIS Rules, a Rule that allows the arbitral tribunal to grant ex parte interim relief. Moderated by Ms Gerui Lim, this particular topic provoked a robust discussion. In an arbitration seated in Singapore, DIS’ Article 25 would cause a party to lose their recourse to the Singapore court for ex parte interim relief. This is a consequence of the Singaporean court’s stance that its power to grant interim relief is incidental to that of the tribunal. Therefore, it is possible that the Singapore court would not grant ex parte interim relief when such recourse is already available from the tribunal (see NCC International AB v Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd [2008] 2 SLR (R) 565).

Conclusion

The event closed as the moderators synthesised the discussion points raised by the four groups of participants. The SIAC-DIS speed conferencing session allowed both civil law and common law lawyers to be exposed to the different perspectives they respectively held on various features of international arbitration. This allowed for the cross-pollination of ideas, culminating in a deeper understanding of these two legal systems and a greater harmonisation in international arbitration.

13 April 2019
YSIAC Chennai Advocacy Workshop 2019
By Deepak Narayanan, Partner, BDN Chambers

April 13 2019 marked the dawn of the first YSIAC Advocacy workshop at the Taj Connemara in Chennai, India. The arbitration training workshop aimed to sharpen the skills of young practitioners by constructing a hypothetical dispute. Eminent arbitrators presided over a three-member Tribunal as participants embodied the roles of arbitrator, counsel, and witness in mock cross-examinations. In both the mock cross-examination sessions and the closing panel discussion, the event provided invaluable insights on how to conduct a successful cross-examination in international arbitration.

The workshop commenced with a warm welcome address from Ms. Lim Seok Hui, CEO, SIAC. Ms. Lim Seok Hui shared the objectives of YSIAC – to nurture and provide opportunities for young arbitrators – and spoke about SIAC’s expansion in India.

Mr. Ramesh Selvaraj (Co-Chair, YSIAC Committee and Partner, Allen & Gledhill LLP) then introduced the fictional case scenario - a conflict over a delay in commissioning a nuclear power plant. The underlying contract for the said project provided for a SIAC arbitration clause.

The first cross-examination session was presided over by Ms. Sheila Ahuja (Partner, Allen & Overy LLP), Mr Ganesh Chandru (Executive Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan and Mr Jonathan Choo, Partner, Bird & Bird ATMD LLP) as members of the Tribunal. Mr. Anirudh Krishnan (Partner, AK Law Chambers) acted as the Respondent’s Counsel and Deepak Narayanan (Partner, BDN Chambers) was the Claimant’s first factual witness. In his role as counsel conducting the first cross-examination session, Mr. Krishnan started things off on a serious note with a mixture of open-ended and leading questions. Adding a dash of humour to the proceedings, Mr. Krishnan taunted witness Mr. Narayanan about his former role as a yoga instructor, leading Ms. Sheila Ahuja to comment “Yea, and you should definitely see some of his moves! ”

Subsequently, the second witness of the Claimant, Mr. Vishnu Mohan (Advocate, Madras High Court), was cross-examined by Respondent’s Counsel, Mr. Tejas Karia (Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co). The session saw relentless questioning by Mr. Karia, who added another dimension of excitement to the proceedings by asking many questions which were not part of the Case Scenario to push the witness to a corner. This certainly made the session very stimulating (and fun for the audience!). The Tribunal also played a more active role and placed their own questions to both the witnesses as well as the Counsel. Nevertheless, Mr. Vishnu (the witness) adroitly tackled the questions and came out unscathed.

In the second session, Ms. Sheila Ahuja swapped her role with Mr. Tejas Karia as the Claimant’s counsel and Mr. Karia took charge as an arbitrator. Mr. Thriyambak J Kannan, (Partner, Assentio Legal), played the part of Respondent’s first witness. Ms. Ahuja – who initially stuck to the traditional method of asking leading questions – varied her tactics to keep the witness guessing and extract favourable answers from him. In return, Mr. Kannan played an excellent witness and tackled all the questions with confidence. The tug of war between the relentless stream of questions from Ms. Ahuja and the intrepid manner in which Mr. Kannan answered them made this session all the more scintillating. Mr Kannan certainly lived up to his Case Scenario stage name – Harvey Spector! Furthermore, the Tribunal continued to be inquisitorial and at a certain time were asking more questions to the witness than Ms. Ahuja.

The final session included Ms Khushboo Shahdadpuri (Associate, Al Tamimi & Company) playing the part of the Claimant’s Counsel, and Witness Mr P. Giridharan (Advocate, Madras High Court) playing the Respondent’s second witness. Ms. Shahdapuri’s solemn tone of questioning, coupled with Mr. Girish’s rather reassuring disposition, led to a highly realistic rendition of a cross-examination session in arbitration.

A rewarding panel discussion ensued thereafter, consisting of Ms Sheila Ahuja, Mr Ganesh Chandru, Mr Jonathan Choo and Mr Tejas Karia as panellists and Mr. Ramesh Selvaraj as the moderator. Mr. Selvaraj invited the panel to discuss the essentials of cross examination. The panel, in general, emphasised, inter alia, the importance of ‘asking leading questions’, ‘knowing the answer to the question you ask’ and on ‘prepping a witness’. Some notable takeaways from the discussions were Mr. Jonathan Choo’s advice on refraining from arguing with a witness – to avoid putting forth ‘suggestions’ as questions to witnesses. Mr. Chandru re-emphasised the importance of asking leading questions, but further added that there are some circumstances in which open-ended questions can serve to a counsel’s advantage. Ms. Ahuja and Mr. Karia, among others, discussed circumstances in which a Tribunal may overstep by asking many questions as the counsel may lose their flow due to interruptions.

The panel warmly invited questions from the audience in accordance with the interactive nature of the workshop. To a participant’s question on the ways to prep a witness, the Panel explained the importance of going through all the sets of facts in a case with the witness. The Panel also highlighted the danger of over-prepping a witness and noted that over-prepping may make the witness more defensive. This would lead the witness to think of all the legal implications before providing every answer, which would only serve to make the witness lose composure during such cross examination.

As the workshop drew to a close, the organisers thanked the Panel and participants for making themselves available from their busy schedules and making the event a great success. The members of the panel were, however, kind enough to stay back at the venue to provide advice to participants and answer further queries.

Overall, the workshop was a highly enriching experience. The diverse backgrounds of the participants underscored the diversity of international commercial arbitration. Overall, YSIAC’s efforts to organise such an event were highly commended and it is anticipated that the rising popularity of arbitration in India will see many more such events organised in the future.

29 March 2019
YSIAC Advocacy Workshop 2019, Kuala Lumpur
by Joyce Lim Hwee Yin, Associate, Skrine

The Young Singapore International Arbitration Centre (YSIAC) Advocacy Workshop (Workshop) was held on 29 March 2019 in Kuala Lumpur at the KL Bar Auditorium. The Workshop was essentially an arbitration training workshop focused on honing the advocacy skills of young arbitration practitioners.

The Workshop started off with a warm welcome address from Kevin Nash, the Deputy Registrar and Centre Director of SIAC.

Ramesh Selvaraj (Co-Chair of the YSIAC committee and Partner in Allen & Gledhill LLP) then introduced a hypothetical case scenario concerning a dispute involving a contract for the construction of a nuclear power plant. This was followed by Sessions 1 and 2 of the Workshop which featured a mock cross-examination of factual witnesses over the hypothetical case scenario.

PANEL DISCUSSION ON HOW TO CONDUCT A SUCCESSFUL CROSS-EXAMINATION

The panellists were Mr Francis Xavier, SC, PBM (Partner, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP), Mr Nahendran Navaratnam, Partner, Navaratnam Chambers) and Ms Sharon Chong Tze Ying (Partner, Skrine).

Mr Xavier shared that in the course of cross-examination, counsel should put forth short and leading questions to the witnesses. Showing contradiction in the witness statements would only be useful if the contradiction is helpful to the counsel’s case. On the other hand, counsel should refrain from highlighting any contradiction if to do so would be detrimental to the counsel’s case.

Mr Navaratnam emphasised that counsel should not entirely rely on the witness statements because there may be gaps. Instead, cross-examination should be based on the facts that the counsel would like to emphasis and establish. Counsels are advised to utilise the time given for cross-examination wisely to elicit facts which would support the counsel’s own case and at the same time, gather evidence that would defeat the witness’ own version of the facts. Another tip would be that stopping a witness from completing his/her answers too quickly may result in the opponent having a chance to re-examine the witness.

Ms Chong shared that counsel should study the facts and documentary evidence in preparation of cross-examination carefully and focus on which questions to ask.

Q&A SESSION

An interesting question was put to the panellists: should there be a difference in how counsel approaches cross-examination in arbitration when compared to litigation?

In response, the panellists highlighted that there is much less time for cross-examination in the course of arbitration than during a trial in court. Therefore, in arbitration, counsel should be focused on the points to be established in his/her case and be direct when questioning a witness.

The YSIAC Kuala Lumpur Advocacy Workshop provided an unrivalled opportunity for young arbitration practitioners to hone their advocacy skills, improve legal reasoning and gain pointers on how to conduct a successful cross-examination from experienced practitioners.

Ms Wendy Lin (Co-Chair of the YSIAC Committee and Partner of WongPartnership LLP) in her closing remarks explained that the key objective of the YSIAC Committee is to provide opportunities like these to train young practitioners.

7 March 2019
YSIAC Lunchtime Talk with Gary Born: Choice of Law Issues in International Arbitration
By Jill Ann Koh, Senior Associate, WongPartnership LLP

The YSIAC hosted a lunchtime talk with Mr Gary Born on 7 March 2019 at WongPartnership LLP. The talk was met with an overwhelming response of 350 registrants within just one week, which led Mr Born to express his surprise at the number of “international arbitration geeks” willing to spend lunch discussing the topic at hand – Choice of Law Issues in International Arbitration.

Over the course of an hour, Mr Born discussed the following three categories of choice of law issues.

Law governing international arbitration agreements

The first category arises primarily from the oft-cited presumption of separability, which recognises the arbitration agreement as an autonomous, independent agreement. A consequence of this presumption is the possibility that a different law, and thus a different choice of law analysis, can be applied to the arbitration agreement from that of the underlying contract.

In searching for the applicable choice of law rule, the rules governing the refusal of recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award in the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) (New York Convention) and the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, with amendments as adopted in 2006) (Model Law) provide some guidance. These state that an award may be denied recognition or enforcement if the agreement on which the award is based is not valid according to the parties’ chosen law, or failing any indication of this, the law of the country where the award was made. At first glance, this prescribes a seemingly sensible two-stage approach that, in the first stage, gives effect to party autonomy, and in the second stage, applies by default the law of the seat.

Problems can however arise from this.

First, a question arises as to whether a choice of law rule which is to apply at the end of the arbitral process (at the recognition and enforcement stage) can be interpreted to also apply at the start of the arbitral process.

The authorities are divided on this – half take the view that the strict wording of the New York Convention and Model Law does not permit this, and parties should be free to apply any choice of law rule at the beginning of the process. The other half adopt the opposite view that the same choice of law rule should apply at both ends of the arbitral process, as it would otherwise be incongruous that an arbitration agreement can be valid in some circumstances but not others.

The second problem arises from the reality that parties very often do not select a law specifically applicable to the arbitration agreement. Should the general choice of law clause in the underlying contract be interpreted to also extend to parties’ arbitration agreement? Again, the authorities diverge, with half taking the position, quite pragmatically, that the general choice of law clause should also apply to the arbitration agreement, since the separability doctrine would be unheard of to most businessmen.

Mr Born proffered his view of the best approach to take: that of the Swiss courts and legislature in applying a validation principle. This provides that an international arbitration agreement will be valid provided it is valid under either the law applicable to the underlying contract or the law of the seat. Such an approach selects and applies the law which will give effect to the arbitration agreement, which, as Mr Born opined, best comports with parties’ true intention that the arbitration agreement will be a valid and effective means of resolving their dispute.

Law governing the merits of the parties’ dispute

In choosing the law applicable to the substance of the parties’ dispute, Mr Born referred to Article 28 of the Model Law, which provides for a tribunal to apply either the rule of law chosen by the parties (Article 28(1)) or, absent an explicit or implicit choice by the parties, the law chosen by the tribunal (Article 28(2)).

Several observations were made. First, in referring to parties’ choice of a “rule of law” in Article 28(1) as distinguished from the “law” selected by the tribunal in Article 28(2), it is clear that the first limb of Article 28 permits parties to select other non-national rules of law, such as the UNIDROIT principles.

Second, Article 28(2) specifies that the tribunal must conduct a choice of law analysis, and it cannot simply directly apply a national law. Mr Born voiced his support for this approach, as choice of law rules do provide predictability and structure to parties’ relationship.

Law governing the arbitral process

In contrast, issues relating to the procedural law are much simpler.

While the majority of cases apply the law of the seat as the procedural law of the arbitration, a rare few apply some other law where parties (who are in principle free to do so) have made such a choice.

Mr Born emphasised that as the procedural law governs not just the conduct of the arbitral proceedings but also the relationship between the arbitration and national courts, the selection of a foreign procedural law raises questions about practical application and enforceability, making this, in his view, a terrible choice. Courts have therefore repeatedly strived to reach an interpretation that parties did not intend to select a foreign procedural law.

Conclusion

It appears that a dominant theme in choice of law issues is the tussle between respecting party autonomy and requiring predictability in a structured set of rules. From the Singapore perspective, the Singapore courts’ approach in stipulating a presumption that the substantive law of the contract shall be taken as parties’ implied choice of the law governing the arbitration agreement, which presumption can be rebutted if the substantive law would invalidate the arbitration agreement, is arguably a structured approach to the choice of law governing the arbitration agreement which bears resemblance to the validation principle, and which also gives primacy to party autonomy.

Given the very diverse approaches across the board, it will be interesting to see how tribunals and national courts will continue to develop these issues, and whether the validation principle – with Mr Born as a proponent – will be shown increasing favour.

6 March 2019
SIAC’s 2018 Cases Exceed 400 for Second Year Running, reaffirming its Global Appeal

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce the official release of its 2018 Annual Report.

SIAC's latest case statistics reaffirm its position as a premier global arbitral institution with one of the world’s largest administered caseloads. For the second year running, SIAC received over 400 cases, with total sums in dispute increasing.

In 2018, SIAC received 402 new cases from parties in 65 jurisdictions. SIAC administered 375 (93%) of these new cases, with the remaining 27 (7%) being ad hoc appointments. SIAC has received over 400 cases in each of the last two years, and over the last decade, new case filings at SIAC have increased by more than 4 times.

2018 saw an increase, as compared with 2017, in SIAC’s total sum in dispute for all new case filings to USD 7.06 billion (SGD 9.65 billion).

In 2018, SIAC was ranked the 3rd most preferred arbitral institution in the world by the prestigious Queen Mary University of London and White & Case International Arbitration Survey. The survey findings show that SIAC is the most preferred arbitral institution based in Asia.

The United States topped the foreign user rankings in 2018 for the first time, while India and China both remained strong contributors of cases to SIAC. SIAC’s other top 10 foreign users were from a mix of common and civil law jurisdictions, namely, Cayman Islands, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates, attesting to SIAC's popularity among users all over the world.

SIAC was the first major commercial arbitration centre to introduce the Early Dismissal (ED) procedure for the early dismissal of claims and defences in the SIAC Rules 2016. ED has since become an increasingly popular and effective tool for parties to save time and costs. In 2018, SIAC received 17 ED applications, bringing the total number of ED applications received to 22 as at the end of 2018, since this procedure was first introduced in 2016.

Mr Gary Born, President of the Court of Arbitration of SIAC, commented: “Our 2018 caseload confirms the trend of SIAC’s robust growth. Parties from all around the world select SIAC for its efficiency, expedition and expert case management services, in both ordinary and bet-the-company cases. 2018 saw a substantial increase in the amount in dispute in new SIAC cases as well as US parties becoming SIAC’s top foreign user in 2018. These developments foreshadow even stronger growth in the future.”

Mr Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC, said: “SIAC has the potential to grow much more. It will innovate and improve on its offerings and Rules to make Singapore an even more attractive dispute resolution hub.”

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said: “2018 was a year where a broader spectrum of users with higher value disputes entrusted SIAC with their cases. We are deeply grateful to the local and international arbitration communities for their strong support, and will further intensify our stakeholder engagement efforts to expand our market outreach.”


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg

21 February 2019
Seminar on “How international should international arbitration be? International standards v. domestic law in international commercial arbitration”
By Mathias Goh, Associate, Norton Rose Fulbright

On Thursday 21 February 2019, the seminar on “How international should international arbitration be? International standards v. domestic law in international commercial arbitration”, hosted by Norton Rose Fulbright in its new offices at Marina One, and jointly organised by SIAC and NYU’s Centre for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law, attracted more than 100 attendees comprising a number of arbitration and litigation practitioners.

Mr KC Lye (Partner, Norton Rose Fulbright) opened the evening by embarking on a short historical discourse and explaining how the concept of the nation state which first came about some five hundred years ago is a relatively young one when considered against the lineage of ancient civilisations. He explained how globalisation brought about pressures to conform to international standards and trends, resulting in an increasing tendency for nation states to insist on retreating into their respective microcosms. How would the pressures of greater internationalisation play out on the legal plane, specifically in the context of international arbitration? The stage for the ensuing discussions was set.

The panellists included: Prof Lawrence Boo (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Independent Arbitrator, The Arbitration Chambers), Ms Elodie Dulac (Partner, King & Spalding), Prof Franco Ferrari (Professor of Law, NYU; Director, Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration and Commercial Law, NYU), Dr Michael Hwang, SC (Chartered Arbitrator, Michael Hwang Chambers LLC) and Dr Friedrich Rosenfeld (Partner, Hanefeld Rechtsanwälte). The seminar took the form of a panel discussion moderated by Mr Kevin Nash (Deputy Registrar & Centre Director, SIAC).

After a short introduction of the profile of speakers by Mr Nash, Professor Ferrari started by putting forward his proposition that while international arbitration processes should aspire to be as international as possible, they are fundamentally subject to the confines and limits of domestic rules (which in turn may themselves be subject to international instruments). He brought the house on a brief tour of how certain international arbitration instruments could be interpreted from this perspective, and cited a number of examples to buttress his point.

The next speaker Ms Dulac sought to address the debate through a special lens: the practice of nation states using national laws (in domestic litigation proceedings) to either support anti-arbitration injunctions or grant orders which would have the effect of frustrating arbitration proceedings. Drawing from her own experience, Ms Dulac queried the effect of such attempts on the practice of international arbitration, and whether they eroded the "international" in "international arbitration".

Taking over from Ms Dulac, Dr Rosenfeld shifted the discussion to the law and practice of legal privilege in international arbitrations and considered the debate from the point of view of what substantive law applies to privilege issues.

He explained that there were at present two dominant approaches to legal privilege: the law of the seat of the arbitration, or the law of one the parties’ ‘home’ jurisdictions (e.g. nationality of that party). Dr Rosenfeld set out briefly his arguments in favour of an approach where amongst these possible contenders, it would be the law which is most in favour of protecting communications between a party and its lawyers from being disclosed. He also demonstrated how the divergence between common law and civilian law approaches on the law of legal privilege made this issue a complex and multi-faceted one. As the subsequent question and answer session would demonstrate, this was an issue which piqued the interest of a number of attendees.

This was followed by Dr Hwang, who sought to approach the debate from a unique vantage point: that of an emergency arbitrator. More specifically, he focussed on the granting of interim relief by arbitrators in emergency arbitrations and drew upon his experience in an emergency arbitrator application filed about two months ago. This writer suspects it was probably not an experience many of the attendees could directly relate to. To the amusement of the audience, Dr Hwang recounted the somewhat exasperating experience of having to look up decisions cited in the footnotes in a leading arbitration text (a certain "Chapter 17") and questioning the progeny of some of the decisions cited. Dr Hwang advocated a view where these issues should be determined largely by reference to the law of the seat of the arbitration, and gave reasons in support of this view.

Coming up as last speaker, Professor Boo advanced the view that arbitral tribunals could afford to take more guidance from international instruments and norms on issues where the relevant national rules were either silent on or stopped short of providing an adequate answer. For example, he queried whether emergency awards could comfortably fit within the regime of the UNCITRAL Model Law bearing in mind that the concept of emergency awards may not conceivably have been in the mind of the drafters of that instrument at the material time. In the process of his presentation, Professor Boo also responded to some of the views Professor Ferrari and Dr Hwang propounded earlier in their presentations. From this writer's viewpoint, an eight minute discussion frankly could not have done justice to the complexity of those issues. Perhaps a follow-up seminar would be in order, SIAC?

As with every well-executed seminar, the "Question & Answer" segment came up last. Questions were posed to all of the speakers, including questions on how issues of limitations and legal privilege might be considered against this international / national divergence. The topic of legal privilege, in particular, proved to be a lightning rod for questions and Dr Rosenfeld was asked for his views on how he thought tribunals should respond when faced with two different standards of legal privilege. Which standard should trump? Needless to say, there were forceful submissions which could be advocated for either side.

This writer suspects many attendees walked away from the seminar that night with more questions than answers (some with much redder faces than when they showed up). If anything, that evening suggested that the issues canvassed were far from straightforward and are likely to remain ripe for future debate and discussions.

15 February 2019
SIAC Welcomes New YSIAC Committee

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to welcome the following members of the new Young SIAC (YSIAC) Committee:

	Name	Law Firm / Chambers	Country
1.	Ms Wendy Lin (Co-Chair)	WongPartnership LLP	Singapore
2.	Mr Ramesh Selvaraj (Co-Chair)	Allen & Gledhill LLP	Singapore
3.	Ms Kate Apostolova	Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer	Singapore
4.	Mr Daryl Chew	Shearman & Sterling LLP	Singapore
5.	Ms Lijun Chui	Clifford Chance	Singapore
6.	Ms Gerui Lim	Drew & Napier LLC	Singapore
7.	Mr Benson Lim	Hogan Lovells Lee & Lee	Singapore
8.	Ms Loh Jen Wei	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP	Singapore
9.	Ms Julie Raneda	Schellenberg Wittmer	Singapore
10.	Mr Paul Tan	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	Singapore
11.	Ms Kirsten Teo	Eversheds Harry Elias	Singapore
12.	Ms Adriana Uson	Norton Rose Fulbright	Singapore
13.	Mr Sergio Nascimento	Sergio Bermudes Advogados	Brazil
14.	Mr David Gu	Tiantong & Partners	China
15.	Ms Vicky Zhao	AnJie Law Firm	China
16.	Mr Zhao Yuxian	Haiwen & Partners	China
17.	Ms Sherlin Tung	CMS Hasche Sigle, Hong Kong LLP	Hong Kong SAR
18.	Mr Bharat Chugh	L&L Partners Law Offices	India
19.	Mr Moazzam Khan	Nishith Desai Associates	India
20.	Ms Sonali Mathur	AZB & Partners	India
21.	Mr Lomesh Kiran Nidumuri	IndusLaw	India
22.	Mr Alvin Ambardy	Assegaf Hamzah & Partners	Indonesia
23.	Mr Yutaro Kawabata	Nishimura & Asahi	Japan
24.	Ms Sharon Chong	Skrine	Malaysia
25.	Ms Marina Zenkova	White & Case LLC	Russia
26.	Ms Khushboo Shahdadpuri	Al Tamimi & Company	Qatar
27.	Ms Wonyoung (Karyn) Yoo	Kim & Chang	South Korea
28.	Mr Warathorn Wongsawangsiri	Weerawong, Chinnavat & Partners Ltd.	Thailand
29.	Mr Kartikey Mahajan	Kirkland & Ellis International LLP	UK
30.	Ms Dharshini Prasad	Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP	UK
31.	Ms Tan Liang-Ying	Herbert Smith Freehills LLP	USA

Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are delighted to welcome a set of dynamic, energetic and motivated young lawyers from diverse legal systems and cultures to the YSIAC Committee. YSIAC seeks to nurture and provide opportunities to young arbitration practitioners all over the world as counsel, arbitrators, tribunal secretaries and speakers at SIAC events, and is an excellent networking platform. Under the stewardship of the previous Committee, the YSIAC community has seen its numbers grow steadily to over 3,000 members from 99 jurisdictions. We would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to the outgoing co-chairs, Mr Ankit Goyal and Ms Koh Swee Yen, and the former Committee, for their hard work and dedication, and look forward to working closely with the new Committee to take YSIAC to the next level.”


For more information, please contact:

Singapore International Arbitration Centre
T: +65 6713 9777
E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
W: www.siac.org.sg