In DTH and another v DTF and two others [2026] SGHC(I) 5, the Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral tribunal’s refusal to award third-party funding costs.
Authored Publication – Partner Matthew Koh examines how Singapore courts have analysed the issue of validity or permissibility of intra-EU investor-state arbitration in two recent decisions, and considers their implications for the global system of investor-state dispute settlement.
Authored Publication – Rajah & Tann Singapore has contributed an article titled “The UNCITRAL Code of Conduct for Arbitrators in International Investment Disputes: Striking the Right Balance?” to the Asian International Arbitration Journal.
In KBP Biosciences Pte Ltd and another v Novo Nordisk A/S [2026] SGCA(I) 2, the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld a worldwide freezing order granted under section 12A of the International Arbitration Act 1994 in support of a New York-seated International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration.
Pacmar Shipping v South of England Protection and Indemnity Association [2026] SGCA 20 considered the limitation period for enforcement of arbitral awards.
Vietnam has launched the Vietnam International Financial Centre. This article adopts a broader comparative and operational perspective, focusing on the court–arbitration interface and institutional capacity in an international financial centre environment.
Authored Publication – In recent years, there has been a growing number of applications to register and enforce International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration awards in Singapore.
Under the arbitration framework, there are prescribed grounds on which arbitral awards may be set aside before the courts.
During the upcoming 2026 edition of Paris Arbitration Week, Rajah & Tann Asia will host a panel discussion titled “Beyond the Passport: Is Nationality a Reliable Proxy for Neutrality?”
In DRL v DRK [2026] SGHC 32, the Singapore Court upheld the termination of arbitral proceedings rendered impossible by sanctions imposed on the claimant.
In DRO V DRP [2025] SGHC 255, the High Court held that a failure to satisfy the preconditions to arbitration is a matter of admissibility, rather than jurisdiction.
In these decisions, the PRC Supreme Court considered whether agreements were formed on a digital platform or on email, and whether arbitration clauses applied.