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…

Singapore High Court: Whether Non-Disclosure or Suppression of Material Evidence Warrants The Setting Aside of An Arbitral Award On Grounds of Fraud or Public Policy

In BVU v BVX [2019] SGHC 69, the Singapore High Court dealt with the issue of whether, after the conclusion of arbitration and the issuance of the final award, the successful party’s decision not to call certain witnesses to give evidence and disclose certain internal documents, which it did not view as being relevant to…

Supreme Court of India: Whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering setting aside application

In M/s. Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. vs. Phool Chand, Civil Appeal No. 5650 of 2018, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is functus officio after the award has become enforceable, and is thus, prevented from considering an application for setting aside an ex parte award. The issue was referred…

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…