Singapore International Commercial Court: Whether A Bad Commercial Deal Resulting Into A Financially Disproportionate Award Can “Shock The Conscience” Of The Court To Set Aside Such An Award?

Consider a situation wherein a party, A entered into 4 Contracts (‘Transaction 1’) with party B for the supply of certain commodity. The payment from B to A for Transaction 1 is not received and yet A entered into another set of 6 contracts (‘Transaction 2’) with B for supply of commodity knowing well that…

The ‘Twilight issues’ series: Determination of applicable law on the status of non-signatories in international commercial arbitration

Image Courtesy: Forbes In furtherance to “The ‘Twilight issues’ series: which law governs res judicata issues in arbitration proceedings?”, in this blog I am dealing with the issue of non-signatories and the law applicable for determining their status in international commercial arbitration. The term “non-signatories” remains useful shorthand to describe persons whose relationship to the…

Singapore High Court: whether arbitral tribunal empowered to issue ‘attorneys eye only’ order, and whether parties to arbitration have an implied duty to arbitrate in good faith

In China Machine New Energy Corp v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and another [2018] SGHC 101, the Singapore High Court dealt with the issue of whether the imposition of an attorney-eyes only (AEO) order by the arbitral tribunal amounts to a breach of natural justice that justifies setting aside the award when the scope of…