Legal News

Singapore Court of Appeal finds that ‘arbitration in Shanghai’ refers to seat, not venue (BNA v BNB)

Published on: 23 January 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Singapore Court of Appeal finds that ‘arbitration in Shanghai’ refers to seat, not venue (BNA v BNB)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a first instance decision of the High Court, which had found an arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction over a dispute by, among other things, interpreting an agreement to ‘arbitration in Shanghai’ to mean agreement to Singapore-seated arbitration. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the results-oriented reasoning of the High Court, finding that the parties had expressly agreed to Shanghai as the seat of arbitration. The court thus held that, as the seat of arbitration was Shanghai, any determination as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal fell under the supervisory jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) courts. Written by Sarah J Thomas, partner, and Daniel Steel, associate, at Morrison & Foerster. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents