Singapore—bargains, agreements and time limits—SICC sheds light on setting aside arbitration awards (BXS v BXT)

Table of contents

• What are the practical implications of this case?
• What was the background?
• Factual background
• The parties’ applications
• Plaintiff’s setting aside application
• Defendant’s striking out application
• What did the court decide?
• First ground—arbitration can be heard by sole arbitrator under expedited procedure of SIAC Rules 2016
• Second ground–award is within terms of submission
• Third ground—award is not contrary to Singapore’s public policy

More sections of this document available when you sign-in to Lexis+ or register for a free trial.

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: The decision from the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) concerning a dispute between a Thai listed company and a Mauritius-registered investment company gives some helpful clarification regarding the application of Singapore law to the setting aside of Singapore arbitral awards. In this case, the award was made by a sole arbitrator appointed under the Singapore International Arbitration centre (SIAC) expedited procedure, a choice which the challenging party was unable to overturn. Wei Ming Tan, senior associate at CMS Holborn Asia, explains the background and assesses the implications of the case.