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 (“PAW”), 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.
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.