- Singapore—bargains, agreements and time limits—SICC sheds light on setting aside arbitration awards (BXS v BXT)
- 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
- Is there anything that practitioners should note in light of fact that the decision is from the SICC rather than Singapore High Court?
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.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial