Arbitration Issues: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80: | '''Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80: | ||
Singapore High Court; Judgment delivered by Andrew Ang J, 15 March 2010; [2010] SGHC 80: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Front_Row_Investments_v_Daimler_South_East_Asia]] | Singapore High Court; Judgment delivered by Andrew Ang J, 15 March 2010; [2010] SGHC 80: [[http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php/Front_Row_Investments_v_Daimler_South_East_Asia]]''' | ||
Rajah & Tann LLP for the Plaintiff, Front Row | Rajah & Tann LLP for the Plaintiff, Front Row |
Revision as of 22:38, 19 February 2011
DMC/Arbn/11/02
Singapore
Singapore High Court
Front Row Investment Holdings (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Daimler South East Asia Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 80: Singapore High Court; Judgment delivered by Andrew Ang J, 15 March 2010; [2010] SGHC 80: [[1]]
Rajah & Tann LLP for the Plaintiff, Front Row
Chelliah & Kiang for the Defendant, Daimler
ARBITRATION: RECOURSE AGAINST AWARD: WHETHER FAILURE TO CONSIDER A PARTY’S SUBMISSIONS ON AN ISSUE CONSTITUTES A BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE
DMC/Arbn/11/01
Singapore
Singapore High Court
The “Engedi” [2010] SGHC 95: judgment delivered by Judith Prakash J, 25 March 2010: [2010] SGHC 95 [[2]]
STAY OF IN REM PROCEEDINGS PENDING ARBITRATION IN LONDON: WHETHER STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO BE GRANTED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT WHERE CURRENT OWNER AND INTERVENER WAS NOT A PARTY TO ARBITRATION AGREEMENT
DMC/Arbn/10/5
England
Stellar Shipping Co LLC v Hudson Shipping Lines[[3]]
English Commercial Court: Hamblen J: [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm): 18 November 2010
Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/2985.html
ARBITRATION: CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT CONTAINING GUARANTEE AND ARBITRATION CLAUSE/AGREEMENT: TRIPARTITE CONTRACT: SUBSTANTIVE JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATORS: SECTION 67 OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996: WHETHER THERE WAS A BINDING ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN GUARANTORS AND GUARANTEED PARTY
DMC/Arbn/10/4
England
Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v ENE Aegiali I
English Commercial Court: Blair J: [2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm): 5 November 2010 [[4]]
ARBITRATION: TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT: WHETHER PARTIES COULD AGREE TO APPEALS TO THE COURT ON QUESTIONS OF FACT: WHETHER PARTIES HAD AGREED TO APPEALS TO THE COURT ON QUESTIONS OF FACT
DMC/Arbn/10/3
England
Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Isthisal Endustri AS v Sometal SAL
English Commercial Court: Christopher Clarke J: [2010] EWHC 29 (Comm): 18 January 2010 [[5]]
Available on BAILII @ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/29.html
ARBITRATION: INCORPORATION OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE INTO CONTRACT: GENERAL REFERENCE TO PRIOR CONTRACTS BETWEEN SAME PARTIES WHICH INCLUDED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE: WHETHER WORDS USED SUFFICIENT TO INCORPORATE PRIOR ARBITRATION AGREEMENT/CLAUSE
DMC/Arbn/10/2
Hong Kong
Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd v Jinhui Shipping and Transportation Ltd and others[[6]]
Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.184 of 2009: 30 September 2010
http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000184_2009-73172.html
STRIKING OUT: ABUSE OF PROCESS: COLLATERAL ATTACK ON PREVIOUS ARBITRATION DECISION: ‘RELATED PARTIES’
DMC/Arbn/10/1
The Netherlands
Mr Van Wassenaer Van Catwijck, also acting in his capacity as the representative of Mr Saarberg and Mr Ariens (hereinafter called “the Arbitrators”) v Knowsley SK Limited, Manchester, United Kingdom (hereinafter called “KSK”)[7]
Dutch Supreme Court. D.H. Beukenhorst (chairman), A.M.J. van Buchem-Spapens, J.C. van Oven, F.B.Bakels and W.D.H. Asser, 29 January 2010, Case number 09/00505, published on www.rechtspraak.nl, LJN: BK2007
ARBITRATION: DUTCH LAW: OBLIGATIONS OF ARBITRATORS TOWARDS PARTIES IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS