The law of anti-suit injunctions has been the subject of much discussion before the courts. As a discretionary form of relief, the court may take into account the relevant factors in deciding whether to grant an anti-suit injunction.
In the dispute resolution process, the enforcement of an arbitral award or a judgment of court is often one of the more daunting challenges. It may be difficult in certain situations to obtain information regarding the counterparty’s assets so as to plan for a strategy of enforcement.
At the height of the Coronavirus crisis in March 2020, the Indonesian National Arbitration Board (or BANI) issued Decree No. 20.007/III/SK-BANI/HU to temporarily suspend all arbitration proceedings in BANI in an effort to contain the outbreak.
Commercial contracts are sometimes drafted with dispute resolution clauses that require parties to resolve the dispute by way of arbitration. Despite agreeing to an arbitration clause, a creditor company may attempt to proceed with litigation instead.
In the course of a commercial dispute, there are often issues regarding the proper forum for dispute resolution. Parties may disagree over which court has jurisdiction over the dispute, or whether the dispute should be submitted to arbitration or litigation. Anti-suit injunctions are thus vital to prevent concurrent proceedings in multiple forums.
Resisting the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award can be a challenging endeavour. There are limited grounds on which enforcement can be opposed, and the courts have thus far taken a pro-arbitration position of non-interference.
A court order granting an extension of time for commencing arbitration proceedings is less than common. In Times Trading Corporation v National Bank of Fujairah (Dubai Branch) [2020] EWHC 1983 (Comm), the English High Court allowed an application for such an extension.
The Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) has issued its first judgment dealing with arbitration proceedings. In BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10, SICC faced an application to set aside an arbitral award although the three-month time limit for such application had expired.
Following service of a statutory demand, if no payment is received, a claimant can ordinarily commence winding-up proceedings against the respondent. However, if the debt is disputed and falls within the scope of an arbitration clause, the court ought rightly to grant an injunction to restrain winding-up proceedings.
When a dispute is submitted to arbitration, the basis of the tribunal’s jurisdiction is the agreement of the parties. However, certain issues arise when one of the parties to the arbitration is a minor. Can a binding award be issued against a minor, and can it be enforced in the domestic courts?
Please contact the editorial team at arbitrationasia@rajahtannasia.com.
© All Rights Reserved 2021
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.