In The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026], the Singapore High Court considered whether an arbitral award extinguishes an admiralty in rem claim.
In DMZ v DNZ [2025] SGCA 52, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether the courts could intervene in a procedural decision made by SIAC in an ongoing arbitration.
Parties are increasingly finding arbitration an effective tool to save time and costs for larger and more complex restructuring proceedings, giving rise to conflicts between the insolvency and arbitration regimes.
At the Singapore Convention Week 2025 held from 25 to 29 August 2025, Rajah & Tann Singapore supported several thought leadership events.
Where a party disagrees with an arbitral tribunal’s finding as to the seat of arbitration, how may it contest the decision? Can it simply file an annulment application before the courts of its perceived seat?
A fair process is foundational to the legitimacy of arbitration. Without a fair, impartial, and equal arbitral process, any party may rightly seek to set aside the resulting arbitral award.
On 21 March 2025, MinLaw launched a public consultation titled “Public Consultation on the International Arbitration Act 1994 of Singapore”, seeking feedback on proposed amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1994.
Recently, the Singapore courts have partially set aside two arbitral awards for, respectively, a breach of natural justice and dealing with issues outside the scope of submission to arbitration.
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.