In The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026], the Singapore High Court considered whether an arbitral award extinguishes an admiralty in rem claim.
In considering New York Convention grounds for setting aside an arbitral award – particularly the public policy ground – Vietnamese courts may sometimes test the boundary between legality review and impermissible merits review in certain cases.
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.
In ING Bank N.V. & Anor v Tumpuan Megah Development Sdn Bhd [2025] CLJU 1955, an issue arose vis-a-vis the appropriate mode of enforcement of a foreign arbitral award handed down in London …
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?
From an academic perspective, the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law can be clearly presented and analysed based on the Constitution and foundational statutes. However, in judicial practice and law enforcement, the issue is far more complex…
The Malaysian Federal Court has held that the Asian International Arbitration Centre (“AIAC”) is immune from judicial review of acts and decisions made by AIAC in its capacity as the domestic and statutory adjudication authority under the Construction Industry Payment & Adjudication Act 2012 (CIPAA).
On 28 March 2025, the Malaysian Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision of the Kuala Lumpur High Court to recognise and enforce a foreign arbitral award under the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID).
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.