The Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration model arbitration clauses are as follows. 'This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with Singapore*/ English* law. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration in Singapore in accordance with the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Chapter 143A) and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof save to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of

This Practice Note considers the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation commonly known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation or the Singapore Convention. The convention provides a framework for the enforcement of international settlement agreements resulting from mediation. This Practice Note explores which countries have signed the convention and their obligations under the convention and the reservations that they may make. The application of the convention is examined, alongside the meaning of the specific terms used in the convention, as well as the requirements for enforcement or reliance on settlement agreements and the grounds for refusing to grant relief and adjournment of decisions on relief. Other points and practical considerations are also covered. What is the Singapore Convention? The Singapore Convention was signed in Singapore on 7 August 2019. It can be accessed on the UNCITRAL website—United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation The primary goals of the Singapore Convention are to facilitate international trade and promote the use of mediation for the resolution of cross-border

Arbitration analysis: In a robust judgment affirming the findings of the court below, the Singapore Court of Appeal confirmed that Unless Orders issued by the court are to be strictly enforced. Although the court does have a discretion not to enforce such orders, for example in situations where there has been substantial compliance and dismissing the case for a technical breach of the Order would be unjust and disproportionate, there is no general doctrine of proportionality that can apply under circumstances in which breach of an Unless Order would mean that the respondent has breached two successive orders by the court to perform the same act. This is also the case in the context of enforcement of international arbitration awards. Written by Nathaniel Lai, advocate at Duxton Hill Chambers (Singapore Group Practice).

Arbitration analysis: This case addresses the issue of the scope of a tribunal’s power to consider matters falling outside the scope of an order for limited remission made under Article 34(4) of the Model Law. Art 34(4) empowers a court hearing a setting aside application to suspend the proceedings to give the ‘arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings or take such other action as in the arbitral tribunal’s opinion will eliminate the grounds for setting aside’. The Court of Appeal held that the scope of remission is specifically defined by the terms of the court order ordering remission. Accordingly, there was no basis for a party or the tribunal to seek to re-open or expand the subject matter of the award or arbitration beyond the scope of remission. The tribunal’s original award renders it functus officio save to the extent of the order for remission gives it revived power. Written by Wei Ming Tan, of counsel at CMS Holborn Asia.

Arbitration analysis: Peter Doraisamy, managing director, Andrew Lee, director, and Nicole Kwan, counsel, at Peter Doraisamy LLC in Singapore, consider the judgment of the Singaporean Court of Appeal in Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd. The judge in the lower court had granted a permanent anti-suit injunction with respect to the enforcement of a judgment obtained in the Maldivian courts on the ground that it was obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

Arbitration analysis: This case re-affirms the principle of minimal curial intervention in the conduct of arbitration proceedings. The setting aside of arbitral awards will only take place when there is a proper basis. The court will not hesitate to scrutinise parties’ conduct when determining whether there is such good basis for setting aside an award. In refusing to set aside the awards, the Court of Appeal considered that the recalcitrant parties had attempted to fabricate a jurisdictional objection by entering into a separate agreement in an attempt to supersede the original arbitration agreement. The court also found that the language of the new dispute resolution clause was not sufficient to affect existing arbitration proceedings commenced prior to entry into the new agreement. To affect an arbitration already afoot, the new dispute resolution clause would need to be explicit in its terms to overcome the jurisdictional foundation of the original arbitration agreement. The fact that the recalcitrant party had breached its fiduciary obligations to the innocent party also meant that the new agreement, and the new dispute resolution clause contained therein to overcome the tribunal’s jurisdiction in the existing arbitration, were invalid and could not be relied upon. Written by Wei Ming Tan, of counsel at CMS Holborn Asia.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore Court of Appeal partially allowed the appeal by Wan Sern Metal Industries Pte Ltd (the appellant) against an arbitral award in favour of Hua Tian Engineering Pte Ltd (the respondent) and partially set aside the award. The arbitration was conducted on an expedited, documents-only basis. The respondent introduced a claim for ‘expectation damages’ in its written submissions which was not part of the parties' agreed list of issues. The appellant opposed the claim in reply submissions. The arbitrator granted this claim inter alia on the basis that the appellant did not object to or address the respondent's measure of damages. The Singapore Court of Appeal held that, in a context in which the ‘expectation damages’ were unpleaded, the arbitrator oversimplified the appellant's case and therefore ascribed an incorrect position to the appellant, resulting in an award made in breach of natural justice. Written by Yu-Jin Tay, Kay-Jannes Wegner and Charles Tay of Mayer Brown PK Wong & Nair Pte Ltd.

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore International Commercial Court (‘SICC’) has in a recent judgment considered the circumstances in which ex parte interim relief may be granted in support of a foreign-seated International Commercial Court arbitration pursuant to section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (‘IAA’). In Novo Nordisk A/S v KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd & Another, the SICC granted the ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction sought by the claimant in support of a prospective New York-seated arbitration. The SICC considered that it was appropriate to do so as: (a) no tribunal had yet been constituted and any tribunal (including an emergency arbitrator) would be unable to hear the application ex parte; and (b) New York law did not permit the grant of worldwide Mareva injunctions. Novo Nordisk thus demonstrates the robust approach of the Singapore courts in granting interim relief in support of arbitrations in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of transnational litigants. Written by Colin Liew, head of International Litigation at Providence Law Asia.

1. What is the applicable legislation? Singapore has a relatively open investment regime compared to other countries in the region. The Significant Investments Review Act 2024 (SIRA 2024) serves to regulate foreign investment into ‘designated entities’ in order to safeguard Singapore’s national security interests. In addition, there are certain sector-specific laws which govern new investments into regulated sectors and activities (eg banks or financial institutions or ownership in the newspaper publishing industry), as elaborated further below. 2. Which government or other body (or bodies) reviews foreign investments? The Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) is the government body that generally oversees matters relating to trade and investments, with a mission to ensure that Singapore’s economy continues to be competitive and is able to attract investments. The Office of Significant Investments Review is situated within the MTI and is responsible for the administration of the SIRA 2024. The Economic Development Board is the lead government agency under the MTI that formulates investment promotion policies and plans to develop the Singapore economy, including facilitating and supporting foreign

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court (SGHC) dismissed the defendants’ applications to strike out the plaintiffs’ applications to set aside an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) award on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ setting aside applications were time-barred. In this regard, the SGHC held that one of the plaintiffs’ (ie CNA’s) application for correction of the arbitral award fell within Article 33 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law) and CNA could thus rely on the extension of time provision in Article 34(3) of the Model Law. The SGHC also held that CNA’s application extended the time for the other plaintiffs to make their setting aside application. Shaun Lee, counsel and Low Zhe Ning, associate, in the dispute resolution group at Bird & Bird ATMD LLP explain the implications of the decision.

Arbitration analysis: On 16 September 2024, the Singapore High Court rendered its judgment in DHZ v DHY, dismissing an application by DHZ to set aside various findings and orders in an award made by a sole arbitrator against it. In dismissing the application, Chua Lee Ming J emphasised that the threshold for setting aside for breach of natural justice is a high one, and that the applicant must establish not only that there was such a breach, but also that such breach occasioned prejudice to the rights of the applicant. Chua J further emphasised that applications for setting aside are not appeals of the merits of arbitral awards, and that awards will not be set aside merely on the basis of submissions that the tribunal was wrong. Written by Nathaniel Lai, independent advocate at Duxton Hill Chambers (Singapore Group Practice).

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore High Court was asked to continue an interim anti-suit injunction against litigation commenced in Switzerland. The court had to consider whether there was an arbitration agreement, if so whether the court had the power to grant an anti-suit injunction and, if so, whether it should exercise that power. The court concluded that there was no arbitration agreement and, though it did not need to consider this in the circumstances, that while it did have the power to grant the injunction sought it would not have done so in any event.