BANI has published its 2025 Rules and Procedures, introducing significant changes that could impact how businesses handle dispute resolution and raising important considerations for parties involved in arbitration under it.
In DMZ v DNA [2025] SGHC 31, the Singapore High Court considered the relationship between arbitral institutions and the parties to the arbitrations they administer, as well as the supervisory court’s role in overseeing institutional arbitrations.
In the upcoming 2025 edition of the Paris Arbitration Week, Rajah & Tann Asia will be hosting the event “Navigating Cross-Cultural Dynamics in International Arbitration” with a distinguished panel of our leading arbitration practitioners.
Insolvency and arbitration traditionally do not mix well, as they embody somewhat contrasting legal policies. In the modern era, however, insolvency and arbitration have increasingly overlapped.
On 9 December 2024, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) published the 7th edition of the Arbitration Rules of the SIAC.
In the recent Constitutional Court Decision No. 100/PUU-XXII/2024, the Constitutional Court clarified what qualifies as a “foreign arbitral award” under Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
As a prominent alternative dispute resolution mechanism, arbitration plays a pivotal role in resolving commercial disputes. One key aspect of arbitration proceedings is evidence-taking …
Arbitration agreements will typically state that any dispute “arising out of or in connection with” the underlying contract is to be resolved by arbitration. However, what are the limits on the expansive scope intended by this phrase?
A key feature of arbitration is that it offers parties the opportunity to have their dispute resolved in private. Even when arbitral proceedings spill over into court, there are implements to safeguard the parties’ privacy.
Where the Court has granted recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings against a company, an automatic stay and suspension of actions or proceedings against that company will arise. However, may a third party pursue an arbitration against the company?
Where a beneficiary fails to appreciate the distinction between its substantive dispute under the underlying contract and the separate issue of its right to be paid under an unconditional on-demand bond, it risks inadvertently turning its unconditional bond into a conditional bond.
Over the past decades, India has seen arbitration grow in prominence as a preferred dispute resolution mechanism. Where the Government of India is party to a dispute, however, the advantages of arbitration have not always materialised.
Please contact the editorial team at arbitrationasia@rajahtannasia.com.
© All Rights Reserved 2024
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this website are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this website may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information on this website is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information on this website does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information on this website.