Header graphic for print
ARBlog International Arbitration News, Trends and Cases

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized RSS Feed

Newly published Judicial Interpretations on arbitration in China

On 29 December 2017, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) published two judicial interpretations (Interpretations) which came into force on 1 January 2018. Both Interpretations sought to clarify and provide consistency to the judicial review process between domestic, foreign-related and foreign arbitrations in China. These Interpretations have the effect of guiding and regulating the lower Chinese courts’ judicial review process and are considered to be part of the SPC’s efforts to be seen as pro-arbitration. The most important aspect of these Interpretations is the removal of the distinction between

Applying for summary procedures in international arbitration: striking the balance

This blog post was first published on the Practical Law arbitration blog. The scope of arbitrators’ powers to order summary procedures is open to debate. Any application for summary measures requires careful consideration of the possible benefits to be gained from a successful application on the one hand, and the uncertainty associated with doing so on the other. Do arbitrators have the power to grant summary procedures? Whether or not arbitrators have the power to grant summary procedures in a particular case will depend, at least in the first instance,


The Singapore Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court’s decision in Maniach Pte Ltd v L Capital Jones Ltd and another [2016] SGHC 6 (see our earlier article), which concerned a dispute between the shareholders of the international gourmet food business, Jones the Grocer. At first instance, L Capital Jones, the majority shareholder, applied for orders that court proceedings concerning a minority shareholder oppression claim be stayed and instead be settled through arbitration, as its shareholder agreement with Maniach contained an arbitration agreement. The High Court rejected this application

Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016

On 30 December 2016 the Hong Kong Government gazetted the Arbitration and Mediation Legislation (Third Party Funding) (Amendment) Bill 2016 (“Bill“)*.  The Bill closely follows the recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in the Report on Third Party Funding for Arbitration (“Report“) dated 12 October 2016 (see our note here). The Bill clarifies that the centuries-old doctrines of maintenance and champerty, which prohibit third party funding for litigation, do not apply to funding of arbitration and mediation.  It also proposes a new part (Part 10A) to be added to

SIAC Announces Release of the SIAC Investment Arbitration Rules

Further to our previous post the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC“) announced on 30 December 2016 the official release of the first edition of its Investment Arbitration Rules (“SIAC IA Rules 2017“), a specialised set of rules to address the unique issues present in the conduct of international investment arbitration. The SIAC IA Rules 2017 came into effect on 1 January 2017. A copy of the rules can be found here. Mr Gary Born, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, commented that the rules “contain significant modifications to the

A Dawn of a New Era in Bahrain – Enactment of a New Arbitration Law

Bahrain has recently passed Law No. 9/2015 promulgating a standalone arbitration law (the “Law”), which significantly changes its arbitration regime. The Law is applicable to locally seated arbitrations, or if the parties agree foreign seated ones as well. The main feature of the Law is the incorporation of the well-known and tested UNCITRAL Model Law. The Law also provides for some unique features. According to the Law, the Bahraini High Court is the Court entrusted with considering and determining all arbitration related applications, including applications to enforce or set aside