Welcome to Singapore International Arbitration Centre

Time 2020-11-09 23:13:47

Web Name: Welcome to Singapore International Arbitration Centre

WebSite: http://www.siac.org.sg

ID:110598

Keywords:

Singapore,to,Welcome,SingaporeInternationalArbitrationCentre

Description:

SIAC, which commenced operations in 1991 as an independent, not-for-profit organisation, has a proven track record in providing quality, neutral arbitration services to the global business community.The Singapore government has recently released guidelines stating that while telecommuting remains the default mode of working, COVID-19 measures have been eased to facilitate business operations, which will enable more employees to return to the workplace.In compliance with these guidelines, and to better serve the needs of its users, SIAC is pleased to announce that with effect from Monday, 5 October 2020 and until further notice, SIAC’s physical offices will be open three times a week, from 10am to 4pm on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, to facilitate the delivery, where necessary, of physical copies of documents or facsimiles. Should it be necessary for physical copies to be sent to us, please make arrangements for delivery to be made during SIAC’s office hours as stated above.In the event of any urgent deliveries on a day that SIAC’s physical offices are not open, please call us at +65 6713 9777 and we will arrange for an SIAC staff to be available to take delivery at an appointed time.Until SIAC’s physical offices fully reopen and while the majority of SIAC staff continue to telecommute, we respectfully request that all communications with SIAC continue to be conducted on email or other means, where possible, in the following manner:Please direct all queries relating to case administration to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Any queries relating to an existing case should be directed to the relevant SIAC Case Counsel. Please refer to the list of Frequently Asked Questions concerning SIAC case administration during COVID-19, which is available on our website at this link.All other queries should be directed to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..In the event that you have a time-sensitive query which requires an urgent response, please call +65 6713 9777, email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or use the Live Help Desk feature on the SIAC website.It remains our top priority to ensure that your case management needs are promptly and efficiently attended to at all times.If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..The SIAC TeamPlease click here for the Chinese translation.For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg9 September 2020SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Thailand Arbitration CenterThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.Under the MOU, SIAC and THAC will co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in Thailand and Singapore. Pursuant to the MOU, THAC will also extend the use of its hearing facilities at preferential rates for SIAC arbitrations that are held in Thailand.The MOU was signed by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Pasit Asawawattanaporn, Managing Director of Thailand Arbitration Center.Mr Pasit Asawawattanaporn, Managing Director of Thailand Arbitration Center, said, “We are proud and honored to sign the MOU with SIAC. The synergy between our arbitration centers will bring about the development of international arbitration in both countries to a higher level.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, commented that “We are delighted to be entering into this collaboration with THAC. This MOU represents a significant step in furtherance of our mutual objective to jointly promote the development of international arbitration to the Thai legal and business communities.”For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg2 September 2020SIAC Virtual Congress 2020 This year's Virtual Congress opened with a keynote speech by the Honourable the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Singapore Sundaresh Menon, followed by a plenary session titled "International Arbitration: The Challenges and Changing Landscape". The panellists were Chief Justice Menon, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, and Second Minister for Law, Mr Edwin Tong SC, the Honourable Justice Anselmo Reyes, Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC), the President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, Mr Gary Born, SIAC Court member, Professor Lawrence Boo, and Deputy Senior State Counsel, Attorney-General's Chambers, Singapore, Ms Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma. The moderator of the plenary session was Mr Toby Landau QC.The other sessions comprised a Lunchtime Chat, a Debate, and a Virtual Hearing Demonstration featuring SIAC Board and Court members, as well as other eminent international arbitration experts. The day closed with Virtual Networking Drinks.SIAC would like to thank all speakers, sponsors, supporting organisations and media partners for your generous support and contributions. We would also like to thank delegates and friends from the local and international arbitration communities for making the time and effort to participate in the Virtual Congress.The full text of Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon's keynote speech may be found here.The various reports on the SIAC Virtual Congress 2020 can be accessed here.31 August 2020 Release of the SIAC Guides - Taking Your Arbitration RemoteDear Colleagues,I am pleased to announce the release of SIAC Guides, a series of user-friendly tools created by the SIAC Secretariat to assist SIAC’s users, arbitrators, colleagues and stakeholders to conduct their arbitration cases.The first of the SIAC Guides series seeks to help users effectively navigate the use of audio conference, videoconference, and other non-physical means of communications in their arbitration cases. While the use of virtual hearing technologies and remote hearing platforms has always been a feature of international arbitration, the Covid-19 pandemic has exponentially increased the scale at which they are used. It is timelier than ever, therefore, to consider the transition from traditional physical hearings to remote hearings, which is not always straightforward. Presented in the form of checklists, Taking Your Arbitration Remote not only provides guidance for arbitration users who are unfamiliar with remote hearings, but also serves as a handy reminder for those who already have prior experience with such hearings.We recognise that the manner of conducting remote hearings may vary depending on the type of dispute and the preferences of the participants. Taking Your Arbitration Remote is designed to help parties identify the main considerations that could impact the adoption of remote hearing technologies, and encourage discussions between parties and tribunals on the most suitable procedure for their specific case.Remote hearing technologies, if utilised appropriately, can facilitate the resolution of parties’ disputes in a fair, expeditious and economical manner.Thank you for your continued trust in us as we strive to innovate in the field of international arbitration, and to better serve the arbitration community as a whole. Yours sincerely, Gary Born President of the Court of Arbitration Singapore International Arbitration Centre8 July 2020 SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Thammasat University Faculty of LawThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Thammasat University Faculty of Law (TU Law).Under the MOU, SIAC and TU Law will work together to place law students from TU Law in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and TU Law will collaborate to incorporate a module on “SIAC and Institutional Arbitration” into the TU law programme. Upon request by SIAC or TU Law, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in Thailand to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.The MOU was signed on 8 July 2020 by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Associate Professor Dr. Munin Pongsapan, Dean of TU Law.Associate Professor Dr. Munin Pongsapan, Dean of TU Law, said, “We are delighted to be entering into this MOU with SIAC, one of the world’s top arbitral institutions. We firmly believe that this collaboration will serve to cultivate and enhance the growing popularity of international arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism among future generations of Thai lawyers.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “Thai parties are valued top foreign users of SIAC. We look forward to working closely with TU Law, a premier Thai academic institution, to jointly promote the benefits of institutional arbitration to the Thai arbitration community.”For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg7 July 2020SIAC Announces Commencement of Revisions for SIAC Arbitration RulesThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre is pleased to announce the formal commencement of the process of reviewing the SIAC Arbitration Rules. The Rules revision will take into account recent developments in international arbitration practice and procedure, and is aimed at better serving the needs of businesses, financial institutions and governments that use SIAC. SIAC plans to release the seventh edition of the SIAC Arbitration Rules in the third quarter of 2021.The SIAC Rules were last revised in 2016. Key highlights of the 2016 revisions included the introduction of additional time and cost-saving mechanisms such as consolidation, multiple contracts, and joinder of additional parties, as well as an innovative procedure for the early dismissal of claims and defences. The 2016 revisions also saw the delocalisation of the seat of arbitration and practical enhancements to the popular Expedited Procedure and Emergency Arbitration provisions. During the 2016 public consultation process, SIAC received nearly 1,000 comments from arbitration stakeholders located around the world.The upcoming seventh edition of the SIAC Rules will introduce state-of-the-art revisions to better cater to the evolving needs and profiles of SIAC users. To this end, the SIAC Court of Arbitration has established a Rules Revision Executive Committee and Subcommittees on (i) Multiple Contracts, Consolidation, and Joinder; (ii) Expedited Procedure and Emergency Arbitration; (iii) Appointment and Challenges; (iv) Arbitral Procedure and Powers of the Tribunal (including Early Dismissal); (v) New Technology and New Procedures; and (vi) Drafting. The new edition of the SIAC Rules will be jointly produced by the SIAC Court of Arbitration and the SIAC Secretariat.Gary Born, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, said, “SIAC’s Arbitration Rules are the most progressive and user-friendly in the world. The Rules revision process will ensure that SIAC remains at the forefront of developments in the law and practice of international arbitration. We will be consulting widely with SIAC users, arbitration practitioners and arbitrators during the Rules revision. We also invite comments from all those interested in SIAC’s work.”For ease of marking up comments, a word copy of the SIAC Rules 2016 may be downloaded from this link. Comments on the SIAC Rules or case administration processes can be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg1 July 2020SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with Fudan University Law SchoolThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Fudan University Law School (FLS).Under the MOU, SIAC and FLS will work together to place law students from FLS in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and FLS will collaborate to incorporate a module on “SIAC and Institutional Arbitration” into the FLS law programme. Upon request by SIAC or FLS, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in China to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.The MOU was entered into on 1 July 2020, and was signed by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Professor Wang Zhiqiang, Dean of FLS.Professor Wang Zhiqiang, Dean of FLS, said, “It is our great honour and pleasure to partner with SIAC, one of the leading arbitral institutions in the world, to bring top international arbitration practitioners and arbitrators to FLS. Our students will benefit tremendously from the innovative module on ‘SIAC and Institutional Arbitration’. We are keen to expand internship opportunities for our students at prestigious arbitral institutions like SIAC. We look forward to our collaboration, and will do our best to implement this MOU.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are honoured and delighted to be entering into this collaboration with FLS, one of China’s most prestigious academic institutions. It will provide a first-rate platform for students at FLS to gain a unique perspective of institutional arbitration from eminent international arbitration experts.”Please click here for the Chinese translation.For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg12 May 2020SIAC Announces the Appointment of New Chief Representative (China)The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that Mr Zhang Cunyuan has been appointed to the position of Chief Representative for China and Deputy Head (China). Cunyuan succeeds Mr Liu Rundong who has left to pursue other career opportunities.As Chief Representative for China and Deputy Head (China), Cunyuan will be based in Shanghai, China, and will oversee SIAC’s activities in China with the assistance of Ms Sophia Liu Jianying, Deputy Head (China).Prior to joining SIAC, Cunyuan worked in the dispute resolution department of a leading law firm in China, with a focus on arbitration. Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are delighted to welcome Cunyuan to the SIAC team. His arbitration experience and understanding of the Chinese market put him in a very unique position as he works closely with key partners and stakeholders in the Chinese legal and business communities to jointly promote the development of international arbitration in China.”Please click here for the Chinese translation.For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg8 April 2020SIAC Sets a New Record in 2019The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce the official release of its 2019 Annual Report.2019 saw SIAC set a new record with 479 new case filings. Of the 479 cases, 454 (95%) were cases administered by SIAC, which is also an all-time record. The remaining 25 (5%) cases were ad hoc appointments. This is the third consecutive year that SIAC’s caseload has exceeded 400.SIAC’s total sum in dispute for 2019 was USD 8.09 billion (SGD 10.91 billion) which was a 14.6% increase from 2018.Parties from 59 jurisdictions chose to arbitrate at SIAC in 2019. While India, China and USA retained their top foreign user rankings, other significant contributors to SIAC’s caseload included new entrants from Brunei, the Philippines and Thailand, as well as parties from Switzerland, UAE and UK, which is testament to SIAC’s global appeal to users from diverse legal systems and cultures.Mr Gary Born, President of the Court of Arbitration of SIAC, commented: “2019 was another banner year for SIAC. The number of SIAC arbitrations increased, with strong growth from all regions of the world, and parties, counsel and arbitrators reporting deep satisfaction in the quality of SIAC’s services. We look forward, despite the challenges, to another record year in 2020.”Mr Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC, said: “We are delighted that so many from around the world have placed their trust in us. We remain committed to ensure that SIAC will provide the best service ever in this field.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said: “We are deeply grateful to our users from all over the world for entrusting SIAC with the resolution of their disputes. This will firmly motivate us to do better.”For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg5 February 2020SIAC-ADGM Arbitration Conference 2020By Ivy Rook, Associate, International Arbitration, Shearman Sterling LLP, Abu DhabiSIAC’s first event in the UAE, titled “Effective Management of International Arbitration Proceedings in the UAE and Singapore: Techniques, Tips and Strategies to Save Time and Costs’’ was held on 5 February 2020 at the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Auditorium.Ms Linda Fitz-Alan (Registrar and Chief Executive, ADGM Court) opened the event with a Welcome Address observing the commonalities between the UAE and Singapore, as well as ADGM and SIAC. Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) delivered the Opening Address highlighting that the UAE has consistently been in SIAC’s top 10 foreign user rankings in the last few years. She set the stage for the discussions to come by describing SIAC’s leadership in procedural tools such as emergency arbitration and fast-track arbitration.Mr Gary Born (President, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Chair, International Arbitration Practice Group, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) delivered the Keynote Address titled “International Arbitration: Past, Present and Future” detailing the history of international arbitration. He traced the unexpected origins of arbitration, describing an example of an ancient commercial arbitration in what is now Iraq, and a state-to-state arbitration concerning a disputed border. Ancient Greek states, too, resolved territorial disputes, such as those over ownership of islands and temples, through an early form of arbitration. Medieval Europe also employed a form of commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between merchants, with some English trade guilds even including arbitration in their by-laws. Even the United States embraced arbitration from its birth, with the first version of the Constitution including an arbitration mechanism to resolve disputes between the states. By the late 19th century, Mr Born explained, the recognition of arbitration was increasing, with law professor Elihu Root winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his championship of International Arbitration, and the 1872 ‘Alabama Arbitration’ between the UK and the US. Turning briefly to the present state of international arbitration, Mr Born cautioned that practitioners need to think about the growing hostility to international arbitration, particularly amongst states.Left to Right: Lim Seok Hui and Linda Fitz-AlanLeft to Right: Dr Kabir Duggal, Wendy Lin, Alec Emmerson, Sapna Jhangiani QC and Alex Bevan during Panel Session 1Panel Session 1: Tactical Considerations for Commencing an ArbitrationThe first panel included a lively discussion and, at times, a debate about the procedural steps and strategic considerations in commencing an arbitration. Ms Sapna Jhangiani QC (Partner, Clyde Co Clasis Singapore) explained that the purpose of the notice directed the form of your notice of arbitration. If you simply wished to trigger arbitration, it could be a basic document without much details. However, if you wanted to settle, a detailed notice could help provoke this. Following this line of thought, Mr Alex Bevan (Partner, Shearman Sterling LLP) also described the decision-making process employed in determining whether a request for arbitration should be treated as merely an administrative exercise or a piece of written advocacy. Ms Wendy Lin (Co-Chair, YSIAC Committee; Partner, WongPartnership LLP) stressed that consideration should be given to how much detail needed to go into a notice or request. Ms Lin and Dr Kabir Duggal (Senior Associate, Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer) then discussed preparations for arbitration. They noted the importance of verifying the facts and requesting all correspondence, including WhatsApp from your client.The moderator, Mr Alec Emmerson (Arbitrator, ADR Management Consultancies, Dubai) prompted a lively discussion about the selection and appointment of arbitrators, with Dr Duggal noting the clash between the institutional requirement that arbitrators must be independent and impartial and the client perspective. Mr Bevan noted that there was limited hard data available for practitioners to research potential arbitrators before proposing candidates to their client. Mr Bevan went on to describe the SIAC-SIMC Arb-Med-Arb Protocol (Protocol), which he considered an interesting innovation. He noted that the Protocol proposed the use of mediation at an interesting time, which was once the initial pleadings had been served and the tribunal had been constituted. This was likely to be more useful in practice than what was often seen in multi-tiered arbitration agreements which provide mediation as a mandatory pre-arbitral step, and sometimes functioned as a mere formality. Dr Duggal and Mr Bevan closed the first panel by describing the efficiency of prima facie jurisdictional objections prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.Left to Right: Kelvin Kek, Khurram Khan, Thomas R. Snider, Anne K. Hoffmann and Yu-Jin Tay during Panel Session 2Left to Right: Michael Black QC, Scott Vesel, Gary Born, Mahesh Rai and Aloke Ray QC during Panel Session 3Panel Session 2: Saving Time and Costs under the SIAC Rules (Expedited Procedure, Emergency Arbitrator, Early Dismissal)In the spirit of the session, the speakers kept their remarks efficient. Mr Kelvin Kek (Partner, Allen Gledhill LLP) began the session by describing the role of emergency arbitrators under the International Arbitration Act. Mr Khurram Khan (Legal Director, Addleshaw Goddard (Middle East) LLP) then gave an overview of Expedited Procedure, noting that most arbitrations now have some form of this fast-track path. Ms Anne K. Hoffman (Independent Arbitrator, Hoffman Arbitration LLC, UAE) introduced the topic of Early Dismissal of claims, noting that SIAC introduced it in its SIAC Rules 2016. She highlighted what she called ‘due process paranoia’, and the idea that if Early Dismissal procedure did not work, it might instead simply function as an additional procedural step that lengthened the arbitral proceedings.Mr Yu-Jin Tay (Partner Head, International Arbitration (Asia), Mayer Brown LLP) focused on Expedited Procedure, noting that while the urgency threshold for fast-tracking an arbitration was generally lower than that for getting an emergency arbitrator, the threshold was nevertheless ‘exceptional urgency’. He focused on the meaning of ‘exceptional urgency’, urging lawyers to not oversell the likelihood to clients of meeting this high bar. Mr Thomas R. Snider (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Partner, Head of Arbitration, Al Tamimi Company) noted in particular a problem in the region in which Respondents refused to pay their share of the costs. Panel Session 3: Comparative Perspectives on International Arbitration in the United Arab Emirates and Singapore Mr Gary Born moderated the session and embracing the spirit of an event titled ‘Effective Management’, kept the session efficient. Mr Michael Black QC (XXIV Old Buildings Barristers’ Chambers) began the session by discussing the arbitration landscape in the UAE, which he summarised in the ‘list of three: enforcement, enforcement, enforcement.” He noted the legal particularities of the UAE being one single country with three legal systems: the offshore DIFC and ADGM common law systems, as well as the onshore federal civil law system, not to mention the individual legal systems of each individual emirate. He highlighted that a new law had shifted the UAE into a much more pro-arbitration stance. Mr Scott Vesel (Partner, Three Crowns LLP) presented on ‘Arbitration in Singapore in the UAE: who arbitrates, who uses, and why’. He broke down the national origin in arbitrator appointments and claimants in SIAC as compared to UAE’s arbitral institutions, emphasising how striking it was how prominent a single geographic region’s representation was (Singapore and the UK in Singapore, and the Middle East in the UAE) in each institution. Mr Mahesh Rai (Director (Dispute Resolution), Drew Napier LLC) spoke about three key priorities in arbitration: “Cheap, Fast, and Good.” He briefly spoke about the expedited procedure and emergency arbitrators, and highlighted that SIAC was one of the first institutions to put its cost calculator online. Mr Aloke Ray QC (Partner, White Case LLP, London) emphasised that ultimately enforcement is a critical issue, and that Singapore is one of the leading global arbitration seats. Mr Snider gave the Closing Remarks, re-emphasising the relationship between the UAE and SIAC, and echoing the excitement of many in the room about the first significant SIAC conference in the Middle East.5 February 2020YSIAC-ADGM Advocacy Workshop 2020By Catalina Bizic, Arbitration Intern, Al Tamimi CompanyThe YSIAC-ADGM Advocacy Workshop took place on 5 February 2020 in Abu Dhabi at the ADGM Arbitration Centre to put into practical perspective both the art of oral advocacy and essential skills for a successful cross-examination. Over 70 people attended the workshop which was followed by the SIAC-ADGM Arbitration Conference.The host for the workshop was Ms Khushboo Shahdadpuri (Member, YSIAC Committee; Senior Associate, Al Tamimi Company), who introduced the speakers, starting with Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC). Ms Lim highlighted that UAE parties had ranked 5th in the top 10 foreign users of SIAC in 2019, and pointed out the benefits of joining the YSIAC network of talented practitioners from around the world.The Keynote Address was delivered by Mr Gary Born (President, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Chair, International Arbitration Practice Group, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) who switched the initial topic requested by YSIAC on “The Art of Oral Advocacy” to “The Myth of Pathological Clauses: Perfecting Imperfect Arbitration Agreements” because without consent or a valid arbitration agreement, there would be no arbitration and therefore no oral advocacy. The main takeaway suggested by Mr Born was that imperfect arbitration agreements deserve to be cured and perfected and not abandoned in a “dark museum” of pathological clauses.Left to Right: Fatima Balfaqeeh, Anne K. Hoffmann, Lim Seok Hui, Gary Born, Thomas R. Snider, Iryna Akulenka, Wendy Lin, Thanos Karvelis, David Hume, Richard Clarke, Yu-Jin Tay and Khushboo ShahdadpuriMs Shahdadpuri thereafter introduced the case scenario and the structure of the workshop, which featured Ms Anne K. Hoffmann (Independent Arbitrator, Hoffmann Arbitration LLC, UAE), Mr Thomas R. Snider (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Partner, Head of Arbitration, Al Tamimi Company) and Mr Yu-Jin Tay (Partner Head, International Arbitration (Asia), Mayer Brown LLP) as the arbitral tribunal.The fictional case involved a dispute arising out of a contract for the construction of a nuclear power plant between a UK and an Iraqi party. The dispute resolution clause provided for arbitration in Abu Dhabi under the SIAC Rules. An alleged delay of the completion of the works prompted the Iraqi company to seek damages for the delay and rescission of the contract and the UK company to bring forth a counterclaim for the non-payment of certain sums.For the first cross-examination session, the Claimant’s witnesses were Ms Iryna Akulenka (Managing Consultant, HKA Global Limited) and Mr Richard Clarke (Senior Associate, Dentons Co.). They were cross-examined by the Respondent’s counsel, Ms Wendy Lin (Co-Chair, YSIAC Committee; Partner, WongPartnership LLP) and Mr David Hume (Senior Associate, Shearman Sterling LLP). The session showcased one incisive style of cross-examination as opposed to a more gentle style, both nonetheless effective in making the witness appear less credible and reliable.The second cross-examination session had the Claimant’s counsel cross-examining the Respondent’s factual witnesses. Mr Daniel Xu (Partner, King Wood Mallesons) and Mr Thanos Karvelis (Partner, Charles Russell Speechlys) posed questions to Mr Marcus Starke (Senior Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP) and Ms Fatima Balfaqeeh (Managing Director, RKAH Consultancy). Both styles of cross-examination had different effects on the witnesses, which either found them standing on shaky ground or growing more confident with each question.Lastly, Ms Sarah Malik (CEO Founder, SOL International) moderated the panel discussion with Ms Hoffmann, Mr Snider and Mr Tay on dos and don’ts during a cross examination based on the mock sessions. One of the key points emphasised was how crucial preparation is to ensure knowledge of the case and of the witness but still leave room for flexibility. The panel also tackled the different expectations when cross-examining lay witnesses compared to expert witnesses, as well as the civil law and common law divide. On the latter point, it was highlighted that arbitration is unique in that there is a melting pot of styles, where the civil versus common law divide is attenuated and that practitioners should adopt whatever method comes to them naturally so that they become more authentic advocates.Following this well-received inaugural YSIAC event, we look forward to other practical workshops organised by YSIAC here in the UAE.17 January 2020SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Chulalongkorn University Faculty of LawThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Chulalongkorn University Faculty of Law (Chula Law).Under the MOU, SIAC and Chula Law will work together to place law students from Chula in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and Chula Law will collaborate to incorporate a module on “SIAC and Institutional Arbitration” into the Chula law programme. Upon request by SIAC or Chula Law, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in Thailand to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.The MOU was signed on 16 January 2020 in Bangkok by Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, and Assistant Professor Dr. Pareena Srivanit, Dean of Chula Law.Assistant Professor Dr. Pareena Srivanit, Dean of Chula Law, said, “With the wealth of knowledge that SIAC has built up in case administration of international arbitration cases, we believe this MOU for internships at SIAC and the conduct of the “SIAC and Institutional Arbitration” module at Chula Law, will provide a unique opportunity for our students to learn from one of the world’s top arbitral institutions and internationally renowned arbitration experts.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “SIAC is honoured and delighted to be entering into this MOU with Chula Law, a premier Thai academic institution. We look forward to working closely to promote the benefits of institutional arbitration to existing and potential users in the Thai arbitration community.”For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg6 January 2020SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Keio University Law SchoolThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Keio University Law School (KEIO LAW).Under the MOU, SIAC and KEIO LAW will work together to place law students from KEIO LAW in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and KEIO LAW will collaborate to incorporate a module on "SIAC and Institutional Arbitration" into the KEIO LAW teaching programme. Upon request by SIAC or KEIO LAW, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in Japan to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.The MOU was signed on 6 January 2020, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Isao Kitai, Dean of KEIO LAW.Mr Isao Kitai, Dean of KEIO LAW, said, "KEIO LAW looks forward to launching the inaugural edition of the SIAC Module in April this year as a first step in our MOU collaboration with SIAC, one of the world's top arbitral institutions. We are confident that the SIAC Module, coupled with the internship programme, will provide an excellent platform for students at KEIO LAW to gain a unique firsthand perspective of institutional arbitration from eminent international arbitration experts."Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, "We are honoured and delighted to be entering into this MOU with KEIO LAW, a premier Japanese academic institution. We firmly believe that this partnership will enable SIAC to contribute further towards the development of international arbitration in Japan and enhance our relationships with our valued Japanese users."For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sgSIAC Year in Review 2019Happy New Year from all of us at SIAC and best wishes for a happy, healthy and successful 2020.As we usher in the new year, we look back fondly at some of the key highlights of 2019.Left to right: Mr John P. Bang, Ms Yas Banifatemi, Ms Julie Bedard, Mr K. Minh Dang, Ms Jessica Fei, Mr Eri Hertiawan and Mr Tejas KariaLeft to right: Mr Fernando Mantilla-Serrano, Ms K. Shanti Mogan, Ms Shaneen Parikh, Mr Philippe Pinsolle, Mr Michael E. Schneider, Ms Abby Cohen Smutny and Mr Thomas SniderIn June 2019, SIAC was pleased to announce the appointment of fourteen new Court members to the SIAC Court of Arbitration, which continues under the leadership of Mr Gary Born as its President, and Ms Lucy Reed and Mr Cavinder Bull, SC, as Vice Presidents.The new Court members are as follows: The 33-member SIAC Court is comprised of eminent international arbitration experts from Australia, Belgium, China, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America and Vietnam.New SIAC Overseas Representatives for South Asia, North East Asia and ChinaIn 2019, SIAC welcomed new overseas representatives to its Mumbai, Seoul and Shanghai offices.The new overseas representatives are Ms Shwetha Bidhuri, Head (South Asia), Ms Michele Park Sonen, Head (North East Asia), and Ms Sophia Liu Jianying, Co-Deputy Head (China).The SIAC AcademyFollowing the success of the first edition of the SIAC Academy titled “Time and Cost Savers at SIAC: Emergency Arbitration, Expedited Procedure and Early Dismissal”, the second edition of the SIAC Academy titled “The Making of an Advocate and an Arbitrator” was held in Singapore on 18 and 19 November 2019.Left to Right: Mr Gary Born, Prof Bernard Hanotiau,Mr Daryl Chew and Mr Alastair Henderson at theSIAC Academy in SingaporeLeft to Right: Ms Loh Jen Wei, Mr Jonathan Lim,Prof Lucy Reed and Mr Alan Thambiayah at the SIAC Academy in SingaporeMr Gary Born, SIAC Court President, chaired the teaching faculty which included Prof Lucy Reed, SIAC Court Vice President, members of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, Prof Bernard Hanotiau and Mr Alan Thambiayah, Mr Chong Yee Leong, SIAC Board member as well as other leading international arbitration practitioners and arbitrators.The first edition of the SIAC Academy was held overseas in Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur and Manila in 2019, with Mr Cavinder Bull, SC, SIAC Court Vice President, Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Deputy Chairman of SIAC, and Mr Alan Thambiayah, SIAC Court member as faculty chairs.Mr Davinder Singh, SC at the SIAC Academy in SingaporeLeft to Right: Mr Cavinder Bull, SC and Mr Kevin Nash at the SIAC Academy in JakartaLeft to Right: Ms Angela Yap and Mr Francis Xavier,SC, PBM at the SIAC Academy in Kuala LumpurLeft to Right: Mr Enrique V. Dela Cruz, Jr., Mr Herman Jeremiah, Mr Ricardo Ma. P.G. Ongkiko, Mr Siraj Omar, SC and Prof Mario E Valderrama at the SIAC Academy in ManilaSIAC Conferences and PartnershipsIn 2019, SIAC held its annual overseas conferences in Bangalore, Bangkok, Chennai, Delhi, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Seoul, Shanghai and Tokyo. SIAC partnered with the Japan Association of Arbitrators (JAA), Korean Commercial Arbitration Board International (KCAB International), the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC), the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), the Society of Construction Law (SCL) Malaysia and the Malaysian Institute of Arbitrators (MIArb) for its events in Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Bangkok and Kuala Lumpur.Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, Minister of Communications, Law Justice and Electronics InformationTechnology, India at the SIAC India SummitMr K Shanmugam, SC, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Singapore at the SIAC India Summit Hon’ble Mr Justice Rohinton F. Nariman, Judge,Supreme Court of India at the SIAC India SummitHon'ble Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India at the SIAC India SummitLeft to Right: Ms Sheila Ahuja, Dr Michael Hwang, SC, Mr Toby Landau QC and Mr Andre Maniam, SC at the SIAC India SummitLeft to Right: Mr Chris Bailey, Mr Braden Billiet, Mr Chan Hock Keng, Ms Sue Hyun Lim, Mr Michael Lee, Mr Rob Palmer and Mr Eugene Tan at the SIAC-KCAB Seoul ConferenceLeft to Right: Mr Steven Burkill, Mr Prakash Pillaiand Mr John Rainbird at the SIAC-THAC BangkokConferenceLeft to Right: Ms Delphine Ho, YA Dato’ Mary Lim,Ms Janice Tay and Ms Sharon Chong at theSCL-SIAC-MIArb SeminarSIAC held joint seminars with the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the German Arbitration Institute (DIS), the New York University School of Law (NYU) and the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) in Singapore.Left to Right: Mr Peter Heckel, Ms Lijun Chui,Mr Peter Wolrich, Mr Christopher Boog, MrChristopher Lau, SC, Ms Francesca Mazzaand Ms Gerui Lim at the SIAC-DIS SeminarLeft to Right: Prof Lawrence Boo, Mr Zhang Yulin (Jerry), Ms Qian Wu, Dr Wang Junfeng and Ms Lu Fei at theSIAC-CIETAC SeminarIn 2019, SIAC signed various Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with the Beijing International Arbitration Center (BIAC), JAA, Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (JIDRC), New York International Arbitration Center (NYIAC) and SHIAC. MOUs were also signed with the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL) and the University of Malaya (UM).Left to Right: Mr Chong Yee Leong, Ms Lim Seok Hui, Mr Yoshimitsu Aoyama, MrHiroyuki Tezuka, Mr Yoshimasa Furuta and Ms Chieko Tsuchiyaat theMOU signing at the SIAC-JAA ConferenceLeft to Right: Mr Li Zhigang, Ms Chen Jingying andMr Chan Leng Sun, SC at the MOU signing at theSIAC-SHIAC ConferenceNew YSIAC CommitteeIn February 2019, SIAC welcomed the members of the new YSIAC Committee, led by co-chairs, Ms Wendy Lin and Mr Ramesh Selvaraj.The 31-member Committee comprises young arbitration practitioners from Brazil, China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom and the United States of America.YSIAC Conference 2019 The biennial YSIAC Conference titled “Arbitration 2.0 – Navigating New Frontiers in International Dispute Resolution” was held in Singapore on 20 November 2019. The conference attracted over 150 delegates from 17 jurisdictions, with delegates coming from as far afield as France, Portugal, Russia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Left to Right: Mr Lau Wai Ming, Mr Jern-Fei Ng QC, Mr James Nicholson and Ms Pauline Low at the YSIAC ConferenceLeft to Right: Professor Dr. Maxi Scherer, Mr Adrian Tan, Prof Nadja Alexander, Mr Todd Wetmore and Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC at the YSIAC ConferenceIn conjunction with the YSIAC Conference, SIAC organised the fifth YSIAC Essay Competition, which received a record number of 122 entries from 26 jurisdictions. The winner was Ms Dina Prokic of Canada. The 1st runner-up was Ms Iris Ng Li Shan of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and the 2nd runner-up was Mr Kevin Elbert of TSMP Law Corporation, Singapore.Left to Right: Fadi Hajjar, Emmanuel Foy,Kartikey Mahajan, Nora Fredstie, Angelica André,Manu Thadikkaran, Lucas de Ferrari at the YSIAC Paris Forum Left to Right: Lord Nicholas Phillips of Worth Matraversand Lord Peter Goldsmith QC, PC at the YSIAC London Fireside ChatOther YSIAC events organised in 2019 included skills training workshops, lunchtime talks, debates and seminars all over the world in cities such as Bangalore, Bangkok, Beijing, Chennai, Delhi, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, London, Manila, Mumbai, Paris, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore and Tokyo.We would like to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to members of the SIAC Board, Court and the YSIAC Committee as well as all of our partners and friends in the local and international legal and business communities for their excellent contributions and firm support.With best regards,The SIAC Team9 December 2019SIAC holds joint seminar with SCIA in Shenzhen, ChinaThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) co-organised a seminar with the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) titled “Singapore Shenzhen International Business Environment and International Commercial Dispute Resolution” in Shenzhen, China, on 8 December 2019.SIAC was honoured to have Mr. K. Shanmugam, SC, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Singapore, and Mr Wang Lixin, Vice Mayor of Shenzhen Municipal People’s Government, China, grace the seminar. Minister Shanmugam and Vice Mayor Wang delivered Special Addresses during the seminar.Dr Liu Xiaochun, President of SCIA, delivered the Welcome Address, and Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, delivered the Opening Address at the seminar.The seminar was specially designed for Chinese and Singapore companies involved in Belt and Road investments and featured SIAC Court members, Mr Cao Lijun, and Ms Ariel Ye, as well as other leading dispute resolution practitioners and arbitrators from China and Singapore.For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg25 November 2019SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the New York International Arbitration CenterThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the New York International Arbitration Center (NYIAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.The MOU was signed at the 14th Annual Conference on International Arbitration and Mediation held at Fordham Law School in New York on 22 November 2019, by Mr Kevin Nash, Deputy Registrar Centre Director of SIAC, and Ms Edna Sussman, Board Chair of NYIAC.Under the MOU, SIAC and NYIAC will co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in New York and Singapore, and will invite key members of the local arbitration community to attend and participate in major events organised by SIAC in New York or by NYIAC in Singapore.Pursuant to the MOU, NYIAC will, where appropriate and on a best efforts basis, provide hearing space and conference space in New York to SIAC at preferential rates, and refer parties to SIAC for requests relating to services for arbitrations seated in Singapore. SIAC will, where appropriate and on a best efforts basis, refer requests for hearing space and conference space in New York to NYIAC, and assist to arrange hearing space and conference space in Maxwell Chambers in Singapore for NYIAC at preferential rates.Ms Edna Sussman, Board Chair of New York International Arbitration Center, said, “At NYIAC we have long admired the efforts made in Singapore to promote effective dispute resolution mechanisms and we are delighted to establish a relationship with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. Our common interest in offering cutting-edge educational programming and providing top flight hearing services will be furthered by this collaboration.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, commented that “SIAC is delighted to be entering into this collaboration with NYIAC, and looks forward to working closely with NYIAC to deepen our ties with key stakeholders in the US arbitration community.”For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg19 November 2019SIAC-CIArb Debate 2019By Eva Teh Jing Hui, Associate, K L Gates Straits Law LLCEach SIAC-CIArb Debate has featured thought-provoking topics and this year was no exception. The debate motion for this year was “This House Believes that the Days of the ‘Arbitration Heavyweights’ are Numbered”, with Professor Bernard Hanotiau (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Partner, Hanotiau van den Berg) and Ms Koh Swee Yen (Partner, WongPartnership LLP) as the proposition speakers, and Mr Jaikanth Shankar (Chief Executive Officer, Davinder Singh Chambers LLC) and Professor Lucy Reed (Vice-President, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Director, Centre for International Law (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore) as the opposition speakers. The debate attracted over 120 attendees.Mr Paul Sandosham (Chairman, CIArb (Singapore branch); Partner, Clifford Chance), the moderator, started the night by pointing out that “heavyweight” was not intended to refer to any physical attributes. While this was met with some chuckles, it quickly became clear that the definition of “heavyweight” would be the deciding factor in the debate.Professor Hanotiau kicked off the debate by painting a picture of what (or who) an “arbitration heavyweight” was by using the oft-repeated phrase “pale, male and stale”. His first point was that the majority of parties in arbitrations today are from developing countries and that arbitration panels should reflect the diversity of participants. His second point was that while arbitrators in the past were chosen through the “old boys” network, change has started with the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge. He also cited the African Promise, and noted that such initiatives have resulted in the appointment of more diverse arbitrators by raising the profiles of African arbitrators, while arbitration institutions were doing their part in diversifying institutional appointments.Members of the audienceLeft to Right: Jaikanth Shankar, Dr Jean Ho, Prof Bernard Hanotiau, Koh Swee Yen, Amanda Lees, Paul Sandosham, Andrew Pullen and Prof Lucy ReedIn opening for the opposition, Mr Shankar was quick to point out that he had been puzzled by the synopsis of the debate, which had referred to diversity as the key issue to be discussed. He shared that he had googled the word “heavyweight”, which apart from a category in boxing, was defined as “a person or thing that is important or serious and that other people notice”. To him then, the question at hand was “whether the days of the extraordinarily intelligent arbitrators were at an end”, and the answer to that was that it was clearly not. Mr Shankar quickly followed this deconstruction of the motion with a tongue-in-cheek application for early dismissal of the proposition’s arguments on the basis that there were no merits. Nevertheless, in addressing the proposition’s arguments and their definition of “heavyweight arbitrators” as the “pale, male, and stale” arbitrators, Mr Shankar made the observation that the proposition’s argument at its highest was that there was greater awareness and a push towards diversity of arbitrators. Unfortunately, he noted, the majority of appointments are made by parties and not institutions, and parties would not choose a less experienced arbitrator for the sake of diversity as diversity for the sake of diversity is meaningless.Ms Koh, the second speaker in support of the motion, countered Mr Shankar’s position by emphasising the context of the motion, the “arbitration world”. She noted that within this community, the “heavyweights” were very much “pale, male, and stale”, and listed a host of impressive statistics on the age, gender and nationality of arbitrators today. Appealing to the younger and the young-at-heart in the audience, Ms Koh brought up Jay-Z (a rapper and entrepreneur), who had brought the issue of lack of diversity among arbitrators into the spotlight when he successfully argued before a court in New York that arbitration would be unfair because there were only two African-American arbitrators who were not conflicted in a list of more than 200 arbitrators proposed by the American Arbitration Association. Ms Koh noted as well that she had seen procedural orders that had not changed over a decade and remarked, “what does this say about arbitration which is supposed to be flexible?”.The final speaker, Professor Reed, echoed Mr Shankar’s point on the definition of “heavyweight”. She expanded on his argument that diversity for the sake of diversity is meaningless. After all, arbitration is very much like a boxing match in terms of what is at stake, with the prize being a binding and final award that can only be set aside or appealed on few and narrow grounds. Playing on the comparison between arbitration and boxing, she made the point that arbitration, like boxing, has different weight divisions and in a high-stake arbitration match, no counsel would suggest a flyweight or even a middleweight arbitrator to their client. Conversely, she astutely observed that not all arbitrations required heavyweight arbitrators and there were other arbitrations for more junior arbitrators to cut their teeth on.The judges, Dr Jean Ho (Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore), Ms Amanda Lees (Partner, Simmons Simmons LLP), and Mr Andrew Pullen (Barrister, Fountain Court Chambers), unanimously decided that the motion had been defeated, with the opposition’s definition of “Arbitration Heavyweight” ultimately swinging the debate in their favour. Mr Pullen observed that with the younger generation pushing to be the arbitration heavyweights of the future, there will always be heavyweights. On that positive note for the aspiring arbitrators in the audience, another edition of the SIAC-CIArb Debate was successfully concluded.18 November 2019SIAC Singapore Academy – Day 1By: Tim O’Shannassy, Associate, Squire Patton Boggs (Perth)The second edition of the SIAC Academy titled “The Making of an Advocate and an Arbitrator” was held on 18 and 19 November 2019. Day 1 focused on advocacy training and featured interactive sessions on topics such as the key elements of persuasive advocacy and effective cross-examination in international arbitration. Day 2 focused on arbitrator training and explored how to handle potentially tricky scenarios as an arbitrator, offering a behind-the-scenes look at tribunal deliberations, and even tips on how to draft an enforceable award.Welcome Address by Mr Davinder Singh, SC Mr Davinder Singh, SC (Chairman, SIAC; Executive Chairman, Davinder Singh Chambers LLC) made a gracious welcome address in which he noted the efforts SIAC was making to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. With that in mind, and through vehicles such as the SIAC Academy, Mr Singh encouraged participants to extract as much as they could from the assembled doyens of the industry, and to see how the experts viewed particular matters, and where they saw international arbitration headed in the future.As part of his concluding remarks, Mr Singh encouraged Academy participants to work hard at refining their skill sets and pledged that SIAC would do what it could to support those who wished to pursue a career in international arbitration.Opening Address – The Art of Advocacy in International ArbitrationMr Gary Born (President, SIAC Court of Arbitration Chair, International Arbitration Practice Group, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP) then gave his opening address. In doing so, Mr Born explained that the theme of this Academy, “The Making of an Advocate and an Arbitrator” was essentially an example of ‘double-hatting’, referring to how advocacy and arbitrator skills are commonly thought of as being distinct from one another, yet shared a symbiotic relationship in terms of training.It was through this prism that Mr Born emphasised the importance of listening when appearing as an advocate. He remarked that a common mistake made by counsel was to refer to a ‘script’, rather than focussing on engaging the arbitrators. For that reason, in order to be a persuasive advocate, Mr Born highlighted the importance of being able to think on your feet, being able to deal with questions and comments whilst communicating a compelling case theory. To develop those skills, Mr Born offered one piece of advice for aspiring advocates that could not (and ought not) be discounted: hard work.[Panel Discussion] Elements of Persuasive Advocacy and Effective Cross-Examination for International ArbitrationFor the morning’s panel discussion, Mr Born was joined by fellow arbitration practitioners, Mr Jern-Fei Ng QC (Barrister, Essex Court Chambers), Mr Francis Xavier, SC (Regional Head, Dispute Resolution, Rajah Tann Singapore LLP), Mr Chan Hock Keng (Partner, WongPartnership LLP) and Mr Chong Yee Leong (Member, SIAC Board of Directors; Partner, Allen Gledhill LLP). The panel was moderated by Ms Lijun Chui (Member, YSIAC Committee; Counsel, Clifford Chance) with the session providing helpful tips for improving written and oral advocacy.As part of this discussion, Mr Ng QC, noted that having had the experience of appearing both as an advocate and as an arbitrator, it was crucial to read the situation in real-time when making oral submissions. He echoed Mr Born’s sentiments that counsel should avoid operating via a ‘script’ and instead direct its attention to engaging with the tribunal, something which was a key pillar to being a persuasive advocate. To that end, he advised that the best counsel would listen to see where the Tribunal is interested, in terms of issues or topics, and would adapt their submissions accordingly.That concept of ‘adaptability’ was picked up on by Mr Born who noted that it was also important to have a robust and clear case theory that was capable of being developed and adapted in order to best convey that message to the tribunal. In fact, Mr Born stressed that a case theory ought to be developed and progressed at each stage of the hearing, whether through oral opening, cross-examination or expert witnesses. Such progression is an important test when contemplating whether or not to cross-examine or brief expert witnesses.When the panel was asked about how best to deal with weaknesses in your own case, Mr Xavier, SC, advised that an advocate must have a robust case theory but ought to ultimately be candid and open with the tribunal. He went on to note that arbitration was not a game of chess or a war of attrition, but rather a process of dispute resolution, which entailed helping the decision maker reach a conclusion.To establish that kind of robust case theory, one capable of withstanding critique, Mr Ng QC, added that he would in preparing for cross-examination questions, start with the points he intended to close his case on. He then worked backwards to work out the questions he wanted to ask in cross-examination, and the topics he wanted to traverse in order to arrive at that conclusion.Mr Born suggested that the aforementioned skills required an advocate to execute skills in ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ thinking. These were concepts explored in Daniel Kahneman’s novel ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ where fast thinking referred to the intuitive and ‘snap’ decisions one makes, the slow thinking referring to our logical, reasoned processes. As was explained, tribunals and advocates do both of these things in tandem. As Mr Chan pointed out, one of the best illustrations of this two-level thinking at a hearing was during cross-examination, where you would be looking to keep witnesses’ evidence confined to the questions they were asked. This required very deliberate thinking but also the ability to immediately change course if required.Welcome Address by Mr Davinder Singh, SCLeft to Right: Gary Born, Chan Hock Keng, Chong Yee Leong, Lijun Chui,Jern-Fei Ng QC and Francis Xavier, SCFrom the topic of cross-examination, the discussion then turned to the ethical considerations surrounding the preparation of a witness for arbitration hearings. As the panel pointed out, this tended to be a controversial topic. However, the panel unanimously agreed that best practice was to use the witnesses’ own written statements as the starting point as a means of ensuring familiarity with the subject matter. On this point, the panel noted that although witnesses would often feel like they knew everything about the case because they had ‘lived’ the dispute, in reality, when it was time for them to give oral evidence, they were often unable to recall the precise details or the specific documents. The panel also suggested that it was the less ‘polished’ factual witness statements that generally proved to be the most helpful. This was because when it was time for the witness to prepare for his cross-examination, if the content was already drafted in a style that the witness was already familiar with, they would have less trouble understanding it. On that basis, whilst counsel may wish to assist with the overall structure or format of the witness statement, it was advised that the drafting be the product of several meetings or discussions between counsel and witness. Once the witness was familiar with their written statement, counsel would generally move on to discuss the themes or issues likely to be traversed under cross-examination. However, at no stage during the preparation should the witness be coached or told how to answer a question.For similar reasons of accuracy and familiarity, Mr Xavier, SC, also pointed out that meeting with groups of witnesses together as a ‘cluster’ ought to be avoided, given the risk of a single witness’ own recollections being influenced by others in the group. While the same risks are reduced when engaging expert witnesses, the panel suggested that the actual selection of an expert was probably the most important thing, with the issue of credibility being a primary consideration. They went on to opine, though, that when engaging experts, parties also needed to remember that a clean expert was one who is independent. Everything communicated with an expert could be used as evidence, and would not be subject to privilege. For example, if an expert provided a report which was not favourable to your case, that may be open to being used in the arbitration.To conclude the panel discussion, Mr Ng QC, addressed the topic of dealing with clients who insisted on deploying a specific case theory. He suggested that in those circumstances, it was important to remember that, as an advocate, you had two constituents: one was your client, and one was your decision maker. In order to fulfil your obligations, Mr Ng QC, advised that advocates must have courage in their convictions, to listen to the client’s point of view, but to ultimately advise and persuade them to accept your recommendations by explaining why a specific case theory would or would not succeed.Factual and Expert Witnesses during Mock Evidentiary HearingSingapore Academy 2020 participantsMock Evidentiary HearingsFollowing the morning’s captivating panel discussion, the Academy participants had the opportunity to put their own advocacy skills to the test in a series of mock evidentiary hearings. During these breakout sessions, participants delivered opening submissions, cross-examination of factual and expert witnesses and closing submissions. As the allocated time for oral submissions was kept deliberately short, advocates were encouraged to be clear and direct in their delivery. In sum, these sessions provided the perfect setting for honing advanced advocacy skills, with the added benefit of invaluable, real-time feedback from some of the industry’s best arbitrators.Mock Hearing Demonstration by Teaching Faculty and Q A After having prepared for and delivered their submissions in the mock evidentiary hearing, the Academy participants were fortunate enough to then observe the ‘pros’ in action. Using the same set of facts, Ms Charis Tan (Director, DWF LLP) and Mr Ng QC, appeared as counsel for the Claimant, with Mr Ankit Goyal (Partner (Foreign Law), Allen Gledhill LLP) and Mr Darius Chan (Counsel, Norton Rose Fulbright) appearing as counsel for the Respondent. They were before a mock tribunal consisting of Mr Chan, Mr Chong and Mr Xavier, SC, and with Mr Born roleplaying as tribunal secretary. Ms Chui had the unenviable task of appearing as both side’s factual and expert witness.What was apparent when observing such an experienced group of advocates was that each had a precise case theory, and a meticulously prepared conceptual roadmap, through which they were able to engage the tribunal and effectively convey their party’s position. The mock hearing was light-hearted, but the competitive streak in each counsel was certainly evident.Networking DrinksAt the conclusion of the first day of the Academy, participants gathered for networking drinks. This was a fantastic way to close out the busy day of activities and provided another opportunity to interact with the other attendees who had come from all over the world, with a shared interest in international arbitration.6 November 2019YSIAC Manila WorkshopBy Marco Carlo S. Sana, Professor, Far Eastern University – Institute of LawThe YSIAC Manila Workshop was titled “Demystifying the Commencement of an Arbitration”, and was primarily targeted at younger lawyers who are interested to develop their practice in international commercial arbitration.Mr Kevin Nash (Deputy Registrar Centre Director, SIAC) kicked off the workshop by sharing relatable stories about some of the panelists who had previously worked at SIAC.Ms Adriana Uson (Member, YSIAC Committee; Associate, Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLP) moderated the workshop and started the session by asking the panelists comprising Mr Dinesh Dhillon (Partner and Co-Head, International Arbitration, Allen Gledhill LLP), Mr Nash, Mr Louie Ogsimer (Partner, Romulo Mabanta Buenaventura Sayoc de los Angeles), Mr Siraj Omar, SC (Director, Drew Napier LLC), Ms Maricef Valderrama (Associate, Allen Overy LLP), and Ms Jane Yu (Senior State Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor General of the Philippines) about their first experience with arbitration.In line with the lively and collaborative mood of the workshop, each of the panelists shared their first personal experience with arbitration. The stories shared ranged from nightmares about stacks of endless binders to living the dream as counsel for a hockey team. Surprisingly, one of the panelists could have been a qualified arbitrator by age 14 because her father, a distinguished arbitration lawyer, took her to a seminar where she ended up passing a sample arbitrator exam.The panel first discussed the key features of an arbitration agreement. The panelists unanimously agreed that the provision for arbitration must be clear because the powers of the tribunal relies on it. Mr Nash emphasized that a short and clearly worded agreement is preferred, with the provision clearly distinguishing between ad hoc or institutional, and identifying the venue and seat of arbitration.Ms Uson then asked the Filipino panelists for their advice on commercial arbitration under Philippine law. Mr Ogsimer pointed out that practitioners must be conscious of the different laws that govern domestic arbitration and international arbitration under the Philippines Republic Act 9285. Whilst domestic arbitration is governed by the Philippines Republic Act 876, international arbitration is governed by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law. Ms Yu emphasized that the notice for arbitration must be the addressed to the proper government agency, which requires some knowledge of Philippine administrative law.Left to right: Adriana Uson, Dinesh Dhillon, Louie T. Ogsimer, Kevin Nash, Siraj Omar, SC, Jane E. Yu and Maricef ValderramaThe panel then discussed the requisite preparations for filing a notice of arbitration. Mr Omar highlighted the need to comply with preconditions stated in the arbitration provision before filing the notice. Mr Dhillon added that the provisions under Rule 3 of the SIAC Rules 2016 must be complied with for a notice of arbitration filed with SIAC. He also explained that strategy plays a part in crafting the notice, such as deciding between filing a substantive notice of arbitration to present a strong case as opposed to providing a bare-bones version for immediate relief.As a last topic for discussion, Ms Uson asked the panelists for key pointers to take note of in the constitution of the tribunal. Ms Yu emphasized that the impartiality and the independence of the tribunal is of utmost importance. That is why doing one’s homework and asking for feedback on potential candidates is crucial. Mr Omar added that institutional arbitration offered some benefits in this regard. For instance, you can rely on SIAC’s repository of knowledge about potential arbitrators, including the Secretariat’s experience in working with the arbitrators. The payment of the requisite filing fees was given particular importance by all the panelists.Finally, the participants of the workshop engaged in a class exercise, which involved identifying defects in a sample Notice of Arbitration, and determining the appropriate arbitrators to avoid a jurisdictional challenge.31 October 2019YSIAC Club Event on The “Spirit” of ArbitrationBy Chloé Vialard and Artis Straupenieks, Shearman Sterling LLPOn Halloween, the Singapore international arbitration community had its own encounter with “spirits”, albeit not of a supernatural kind. More than 60 arbitration enthusiasts gathered at a YSIAC Club event to hear a panel of experts from the alcohol beverage industry discuss the legal and dispute resolution trends in the beer, wine and whisky business.The event was moderated by Daryl Chew (Member, YSIAC Committee; Partner, Shearman Sterling LLP). The panellists included Amy Seow, (Co-founder, Raison Wines (Former International Disputes Lawyer)), Geraldine Lim (Regional Legal Director, Heineken Asia Pacific, Singapore), James Nicholson (Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting), Matthew Tan (Associate Legal Director, South East Asia, Pernod Ricard Singapore Pte Ltd) and Angela Yap (Associate Counsel, SIAC).Members of the audienceLeft to right: Angela Yap, Matthew Tan, James Nicholson, Geraldine Lim, Amy Seow, Daryl Chew, Anant Tyagi and Chaitanya AroraMany insights emerged from the panel discussion. For example, it was reiterated that legal teams are effectively business partners of the business units they support. As one panellist put it, “We don’t always say ‘us and them—commercial’. It’s all us.” Thus, in contrast to “riskaverse” disputes lawyers for whom risk avoidance is “a job hazard”, business owners and inhouse counsel must regularly take, share and bear risks.The panellists acknowledged that a key challenge faced by the beverage industry in Southeast Asia is legal instability. “Sometimes there are laws, sometimes there are new laws, sometimes the laws change,” said one speaker, concluding that “that’s kind of, in a nutshell, our life in Southeast Asia.” The speaker said that beyond that, there was another layer of difficulties, namely, that laws were sometimes not enforced, while, at other times, they were not enforced in a balanced manner. The speakers also mentioned advertising as a recurring issue, especially in the context of religious rules or the broad discretion accorded to the regulatory authorities.When the discussion moved to disputes, everyone agreed that the objective was to avoid them, particularly as “the industry is so small and relationships matter so much”. Most disputes that do arise were naturally resolved by negotiation and cooperation.One might assume that mediation is widely used by the industry, although that did not seem to be the case. The panellists recognised that “mediation is always a good idea”, since disputes are kept “low-key” and resolved informally at management level. However, formal mediations with professional mediators appeared to be uncommon. One speaker underscored the importance of the mediator being familiar with the industry.The handful of disputes resolved by arbitration typically concerned matters relating to production, distribution or transportation of beverages. These disputes tended to arise from material and high-stakes contracts, as smaller-scale contracts did not typically include arbitration provisions.Another panellist observed that certain incidences of fraud would necessitate forensic investigation. Recalling one such instance, the panellist recounted his experience about falsification of brewing costs by a smaller entity brewing for a large multinational company under a cost-plus contract.The panellists then considered ways to keep costs low if a dispute did materialise. The panellists discussed consolidation and the benefit of emergency arbitrator proceedings, for example, in disputes involving perishable beverages.The discussion was followed by concluding remarks delivered by Chaitanya Arora, Senior Managing Director at FTI Consulting. He shared personal insights and recounted a matter involving allegations of fraud in the context of an international brand’s joint venture with a bottling company in an emerging market. He also noted the critical role of trademarks in the beverage industry, and the prospect for IP related disputes. Finally, he shared a story about the origin of the term “bootleg” (which apparently was coined as a result of smugglers concealing illegal bottles of alcohol in their boots).Finally, Anant Tyagi, the owner and managing director of French restaurant JAG, delivered a presentation on mixology trends. He focused on sustainability themes and explained that sustainability took many forms, including the shift to non-alcoholic drinks, replacement of plastic straws with corn or metal ones, the increasing popularity of natural wines and, more generally, reducing the carbon footprint of production.The presentation on mixology trends was followed by the highlight of the evening: a longawaited interactive tasting session. No one needed reminding that the best safeguard against disputes is a strong relationship and connection among stakeholders, and that there was no better opportunity to develop those bonds than over a beverage of choice.25 October 2019YSIAC Paris Forum 2019By Katya Hartl and Juliette Musso, White Case LLP The YSIAC Paris Forum 2019 was titled “Emergency Arbitration: Perspectives from Asia and Europe” and attracted approximately 68 practitioners, in-house counsel and students.Lucas de Ferrari (White Case, Paris) gave the opening address focusing on the representation of Asian clients abroad. He explained that while there is a clear trend towards standardization in international arbitration, the parties’ nationality and place of arbitration still have an impact on the particularities of the proceedings. He cautioned against oversimplifications and stereotypes but highlighted the importance to acknowledge certain cultural specificities and use them to the client’s benefit.Emmanuel Foy (Derains Gharavi International, Paris) moderated the panel and noted that emergency arbitration is a hot topic that raises a number of issues such as due process, party representation and enforcement.Topic I: Emergency Arbitration under SIAC Rules Kartikey Mahajan (YSIAC Committee Member; King Spalding, London) began by explaining the purpose and importance of emergency arbitration proceedings. He then addressed its implementation and development across different arbitral institutions, particularly in Singapore. He explained how the cultural proclivity of South Asian parties such as India for interim measures/relief coupled with the efficient administration of these applications by SIAC, have contributed to the increase in emergency arbitration applications under SIAC Rules. Topic II: Best Practices for Emergency ArbitrationNora Fredstie (Latham Watkins, Paris) first observed that there was no universal approach to emergency arbitration. She then suggested some best practices in handling emergency arbitration applications, in light of the short timing that these proceedings entailed, and provided practical advice on preparing the submissions to the emergency arbitrator. Finally, she tackled the issue of resorting to emergency arbitration proceedings when faced with a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause.Topic III: Enforceability of Emergency Arbitration Awards Angélica André (White Case, Paris) started the discussion acknowledging that, according to many surveys, most of the emergency arbitrators’ decisions are voluntarily complied with. However, the concern regarding their enforcement was not unjustified because several issues can arise, such as whether emergency arbitrators can be termed as arbitrators or whether their decisions are considered awards, according to the New York Convention. She discussed these issues from a comparative law perspective and finally drew potential solutions to them.Left to Right: Fadi Hajjar, Emmanuel Foy,Kartikey Mahajan, Nora Fredstie, Angelica André,Manu Thadikkaran, Lucas de FerrariNetworking Reception held at the White Case offices in Paris.A lively Q A session ensued, with active participation from the audience. Emmanuel Foy then closed the panel discussion, followed by closing remarks by Kartikey Mahajan (YSIAC Committee Member).18 October 2019SIAC-THAC Bangkok Conference 2019by Dr Stephanie Garner, Senior Associate, Watson Farley WilliamsThe inaugural SIAC-THAC Bangkok Conference titled “Effective Management of International Arbitration Proceedings in Thailand and Singapore: Techniques, Tips and Strategies to Save Time and Costs” was attended by over 80 delegates and panellists, many of whom had flown from Singapore.Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) and Ms Machimdhorn Khampiranont (Arbitration and Mediation Director, THAC) delivered the opening addresses. In her opening address, Ms Lim noted that arbitration is the preferred dispute resolution mechanism for cross-border disputes in the region and attributed this to the five Es: even-handedness, efficiency, expedition, expertise and enforceability of awards. In her opening address, Ms Khampiranont stressed the importance of effective management of proceedings and emphasised the role played by arbitration centres in managing costs and ensuring expeditious resolution of disputes by tribunals.Panel Session 1: Tactical Considerations for Commencing an ArbitrationThe first panel discussion was moderated by Mr K Minh Dang (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Senior Partner, YKVN). Mr Prakash Pillai (Partner, Clyde Co Clasis Singapore) began the session with his thoughts on drafting the notice of arbitration. He stressed the significance of this stage for the claimant: it fixes the date of the commencement of arbitration and provides notice to the Respondent. Mr Pillai and the other panellists also discussed their views on how long the notice of arbitration document should be, with the majority erring on the side of brevity.Left to Right: Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert, K. Minh Dang, Prakash Pillai, Nathee Silacharoen, Steven Burkill and John RainbirdMembers of the audienceMr Nathee Silacharoen (Counsel, Chandler MHM Limited) addressed preparation for the arbitration. The key points were to review the arbitration agreement and consider reaching further agreement on arbitral procedure (such as the use of the expedited procedure) that would be appropriate to the dispute. He also highlighted the good practice of producing written summaries and a chronology of key events and witness interviews in advance of the drafting of the pleadings.In considering the selection and appointment of arbitrators, Mr Sebastian Seelmann-Eggebert (Partner, Latham Watkins) painted a caricature of seven types of arbitrator: the vanishing arbitrator (who is too busy after appointment), the unprepared arbitrator, the inexperienced arbitrator, the procrastinating arbitrator, the advocate, the unethical arbitrator and finally Fredo Corleone (the black sheep). Mr Seelmann-Eggebert highlighted how some of these characteristics can be both positive and negative.Consolidation and joinder is typically a tricky issue because of the consensual nature of the arbitration agreement. Mr John Rainbird (Counsel, Allen Overy) broke the topic down into three questions: can you, should you and, if so, when? Amongst other strategic considerations, Mr Rainbird highlighted the importance of the consistency of legal rulings, cost and time efficiency, evidential quarantine between cases and the SIAC rules governing the timing of such applications.Mr Steven Burkill (Partner, Watson Farley Williams (Thailand) Ltd) spoke on prima facie jurisdictional objections. He set out the legal principle of competence – competence, whereby the arbitral tribunal is empowered to determine its own jurisdiction. Any jurisdictional challenges should be raised as soon as possible, but the question of when the Tribunal decides a jurisdictional challenge is more subtle and the question of bifurcation should be considered.Left to Right: Chou Sean Yu, Pisut Attakamol,Kirindeep Singh, Siraj Omar, SC and Chua Kee LoonWarathorn Wongsawangsiri, Pariyapol Kamolsilp, Robert Tang, Paul Sandosham, Avinash Pradhan and Chaitanya AroraPanel Session 2: Saving Time and Costs under the SIAC Rules (Expedited Procedure, Emergency Arbitrator, Early Dismissal)Mr Pisut Attakamol (Partner, Baker McKenzie) moderated the second panel discussion of the afternoon, which focused on particular provisions of the SIAC Rules designed to ensure effective time and cost management of the case.Mr Kirindeep Singh (Senior Partner, Dentons Rodyk, Singapore) spoke of his experience with the expedited procedure under Rule 5 of the SIAC Rules 2016. He set out the three criteria for an application and drew the delegates’ attention to the case of AQZ v ARA [2015] SGHC 49, confirming that the expedited procedure applies even where the arbitration agreement contains contrary terms.Mr Siraj Omar, SC (Director, Drew Napier LLC) presented his experience of the emergency arbitrator procedure under Rule 30 and Schedule 1 of the SIAC Rules 2016. He compared the use of an emergency arbitrator with seeking emergency or interim relief from Singapore courts. He further identified the guidelines emergency arbitrators typically use: prima facie evaluation of merits of claim, urgency and evaluation of convenience/prejudice.Mr Chou Sean Yu (Partner, WongPartnershipLLP) considered the early dismissal procedure under Rule 29 of the SIAC Rules 2016. SIAC was the first major international arbitration centre to introduce this procedure in 2016. This novelty has led some to question whether the procedure is open to abuse through the potential of being used as a delaying tactic and whether tribunals may be overly cautious in judging claims. Mr Chou’s verdict was positive and he noted that tribunals have not been hesitant to dismiss claims if they meet the criteria.Mr Chua Kee Loon (Partner, Allen Gledhill) closed the discussions by posing questions to the other panellists to assess the effectiveness of the expedited procedure, emergency arbitrator, and early dismissal mechanisms in saving time and costs for parties. In relation to the ground of “exceptional urgency” in Rule 5.1(c) of the SIAC Rules 2016 for the expedited procedure, the panel concluded that such a ground would only usually apply in insolvency cases, or cases involving loss of license and regulatory consequences in the event of delay.Panel Session 3: Comparative Perspectives on International Arbitration in Thailand and SingaporeThe final session of the day was devoted to a discussion between the various panellists, moderated by Mr Robert Tang (Senior Consultant, DLA Piper (Thailand) Limited). The session considered the various mechanisms introduced to save time and costs raised in the second session (expedited procedure, emergency arbitrator, early dismissal) and sought to evaluate their effectiveness as well as making broader comparisons between arbitration in Singapore and in Thailand.Mr Paul Sandosham (Partner, Clifford Chance) expressed the view that the expedited procedure was one of the best innovations for the international arbitration process as it ran counter to the natural tendency of counsel and tribunals to seek to slow down the proceedings.Mr Warathorn Wongsawangsiri (Member, YSIAC Committee; Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills (Thailand) Limited) noted that expedited procedure is also possible in Thailand (under THAC Rules Section 8). Mr Pariyapol Kamolsilp (Partner, Kudun Partners) added that the procedure is new to Thailand and practitioners had limited experience of its use. Furthermore, THAC Rules require parties’ consent for the expedited procedure to apply.Mr Avinash Pradhan (Partner, Rajah Tann Singapore LLP) emphasised the advantage for a Claimant using the expedited procedure, given their control over the selection of the commencement date, which had been discussed by the very first panellist of the day.The discussion benefitted from input from Mr Chaitanya Arora (Senior Managing Director, FTI Consulting), the conference’s only non-lawyer panellist. As a quantum expert, Mr Arora was able to comment on the importance of obtaining expert input ahead of applying to use the expedited procedure, because of the limitations on the claim value.ConclusionThe event closed with brief closing remarks by Mr K Minh Dang.18 October 2019YSIAC Bangkok Advocacy Workshop 2019By Amornwit Phesprasert, Associate, Herbert Smith FreehillsThe YSIAC Advocacy Workshop was held on 18 October 2019 in Bangkok, and was specially designed to hone the advocacy skills of younger arbitration practitioners through a mock hearing demonstration of cross-examination of witnesses in an arbitration. The workshop was attended by around 60 participants, and provided invaluable insights on how to conduct a successful cross-examination in international arbitration. The welcome address and opening address were delivered by Mr Warathorn Wongsawangsiri (Member, YSIAC Committee; Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills (Thailand) Limited) and Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) respectively. Ms Lim shared that the objectives of YSIAC are to nurture and provide opportunities for younger arbitration practitioners and arbitrators to develop their skills while Mr Wongsawangsiri explained why this workshop would be beneficial to the attendees.Left to Right: Warathorn Wongsawangsiri and Lim Seok HuiWorkshop participants and members of the audienceMs Wendy Lin (Co-Chair, YSIAC Committee; Partner, WongPartnership LLP) then introduced the case scenario and concept of the workshop.The case scenario concerned a dispute over the construction of a nuclear power plant, and the contract in question provided for disputes to be referred to arbitration in Singapore under the SIAC Rules. The Workshop programme featured mock cross-examination of factual witnesses by up-and-coming as well as experienced arbitration practitioners.Both the first and second cross-examination sessions were presided over by Mr Chatchai Inthasuwan (Head of Litigation, Chandler MHM Limited), Mr K. Minh Dang (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Senior Partner, YKVN) and Mr Siraj Omar, SC (Director, Drew Napier LLC) as members of the Tribunal.For the first cross-examination session, Mr Ramesh Selvaraj (Co-Chair, YSIAC Committee; Partner, Allen Gledhill LLP) acted as the Respondent’s Counsel and Mr Kongwat Akaramanee (Associate, Kudun and Partners) was the Claimant’s first factual witness. Mr Selvaraj asked several leading questions in his cross-examination of Mr Akaramanee, and appeared to have cornered Mr Akaramanee with his questioning when his time ran out.The Claimant’s second witness played by Mr David Lawrence (Partner, Pisut Partners) was cross-examined by Respondent’s Counsel, Mr Pisut Attakamol (Partner, Baker Mckenzie Ltd). Mr Attakamol adopted an aggressive manner in his cross-examination and attacked the witness from every direction through his questioning, which made for an exciting experience for the audience. However, Mr Lawrence kept his cool as a witness, and did not allow the rapid questioning to get to him.In the second cross-examination session, Mr Paul Sandosham (Partner, Clifford Chance) acted as the Claimant’s counsel while Ms Sarocha Thongperm (Senior Associate, Weerawong C P) acted as the Respondent’s first witness. The Claimant’s second witness was played by Mr John Rainbird (Counsel, Allen Overy) who was cross-examined by the Respondent’s Counsel, played by Mr Ekasit Suttawat (Associate, DLA Piper (Thailand) Limited). This second cross-examination session also provided a demonstration of various cross-examination techniques and the skills that lawyers need in order to get the answers they want from witnesses.A panel discussion, moderated by Mr Wongsawangsiri, took place thereafter. The panellists comprised Mr Inthasuwan, Mr Dang, Mr Omar, SC and Mr Sandosham. Mr. Wongsawangsiri invited the panel to discuss the essentials of cross-examination and tips for a successful cross-examination. The panel emphasised the importance of ‘asking leading questions’, ‘knowing the answer to the question you ask’ and on witness preparation. The panel also shared some thoughts on asking leading questions and opined that in certain circumstances, open-ended questions may work to a counsel’s advantage. It was noted by the panel that good lawyers must be able to observe the answers from the witness and decide how to order and structure their questions. The panel also discussed the scenario where a tribunal may interrupt and ask too many questions during cross-examination and cause the counsel to lose the flow of their questions due to the frequent interruptions.We hope this interesting and successful event would be the first of many more such events held in Bangkok in the future.15 October 2019SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Beijing Arbitration Commission/ Beijing International Arbitration CenterThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Beijing Arbitration Commission/ Beijing International Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.The MOU was signed on 15 October 2019 at the 2019 Singapore Summit on Commercial Dispute Resolution in China, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Dr. Fuyong Chen, Deputy Secretary-General of BAC/BIAC. The signing was witnessed by Mr Zhang Xumin, Chargé d'Affaires ad interim of the Chinese Embassy in Singapore and Ms Gloria Lim, Director, Legal Industry Division, Ministry of Law.Under the MOU, SIAC and BAC/BIAC will work together to jointly promote international arbitration to serve the needs of businesses. SIAC and BAC/BIAC will co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in China and Singapore, and will invite key members of their local arbitration community to attend and participate in major events organised by SIAC in Beijing or by BAC/BIAC in Singapore.Both institutions will, upon request and where appropriate, provide recommendations of arbitrators to each other, and will, upon request, conduct training programmes for each other’s staff.Dr. Fuyong Chen, Deputy Secretary-General of BAC/BIAC, said, “This MOU marks a key milestone for BAC/BIAC in its collaboration efforts with SIAC, and underscores the commitment of both institutions to jointly promote the benefits of international arbitration to existing and potential users in China and other Belt and Road economies.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are delighted to be entering into this MOU, and to be co-hosting the 2019 Singapore Summit on Commercial Dispute Resolution in China with BAC/BIAC in Singapore as a first step under this partnership. We look forward to working closely together with BAC/BIAC to better support the needs of companies, businesses and investors in Belt and Road projects all over the world.”For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg27 September 2019SIAC-SHIAC Conference 2019By Vicky Zhao, Partner, AnJie Law FirmThe SIAC-SHIAC Conference was held on 17 September 2019 in Shanghai with the theme “Effective Dispute Resolution for BRI Investments”, and attracted arbitrators, representatives of arbitration institutions, attorneys, and in-house counsel from both China and Singapore.Mr Li Zhigang (Vice Chairman, Council for the Promotion of International Trade Shanghai; Vice Chairman, SHIAC) opened the session, reporting on the establishment of the Singapore-Shanghai Comprehensive Cooperation Council. He mentioned that this conference was held in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding signed by SHIAC and SIAC. Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC (Deputy Chairman, SIAC Board of Directors; Senior Counsel and Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers Duxton) followed with the opening address. He introduced SIAC’s recent developments and practice. He held that the cooperation between SHIAC and SIAC would foster closer ties between arbitration professionals from Shanghai and Singapore.Ms Chen Jingying (Vice President, East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL)) gave a special address. She said that the cooperation between arbitration institutions and universities would promote the development of commercial arbitration by nurturing legal talent and outstanding arbitration practitioners. SIAC signed the Memorandum of Understanding with ECUPL during the conference.During the keynote speeches, Mr Yu Weifeng (Chairman, Shanghai Arbitration Association; Partner, Llinks Law Offices Shanghai Office/Hong Kong Office) introduced the establishment of Shanghai Arbitration Association, and Mr Hee Theng Fong (JP, Consultant, Eversheds Harry Elias LLP) compared different practices between common law and civil law jurisdictions on presenting and examining evidence.Panel Session I: Effective Dispute Resolution for BRI InvestmentsThe first panel discussed effective dispute resolution for BRI investments. Mr Huang Ningning (Managing Partner, Grandall Law Firm) moderated a panel comprising Mr Guan Feng (Partner,King Wood Mallesons Shanghai Office), Mr Hu Ke (Partner, Jingtian Gongcheng), Mr John Liu (Senior Partner, AllBright Law Offices), Mr Prakash Pillai, (Partner, Clyde Co Clasis Singapore), Mr Wang Zhao (Partner, JunHe Law Firm Shanghai Office) and Mr Wang Lingqi (Partner, Fangda Partners).The panelists covered topics ranging from the benefits of arbitration for BRI disputes, considerations when selecting the arbitral seat and the venue, potential uses and enforceability of interim measures and emergency arbitrator decisions, considerations when appointing arbitrators, effective witnesses and the role of experts, to the role of mediation and Arb-Med-Arb for BRI disputes.Left to right: Zhiqiang Zou and Vicky ZhaoLeft to Right: Wang Weijun, Guan Feng, Yu Weifeng, Chan Leng Sun, SC, Li Zhigang, Chen Jingying, Hee Theng Fong, JP, Jessica Fei and John LiuPanel Session II: Comparative Perspectives on Arbitration in China and SingaporeThe second panel, which was moderated by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, focused on comparative perspectives on arbitration in China and Singapore. The panelists, comprising Mr Chua Kee Loon (Partner, Allen Gledhill LLP), Mr Hee Theng Fong, Mr Lei Shi (Partner, Clifford Chance), Ms Vicky Zhao (Member, YSIAC Committee; Partner, AnJie Law Firm) and Mr Zhiqiang Zou (Senior Partner, Dentons Law Offices (Shanghai), shared their views and perspectives. The discussion encompassed different approaches to cross-examination, document production and witness conferencing as well as cultural considerations on crossexamination of witnesses and experts, the differences between setting-aside and resisting enforcement of awards and the scrutiny process of draft awards.Ms Jessica Fei (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Partner, King Wood Mallesons) and Ms Wang Weijun (Deputy Secretary-General, SHIAC) concluded the event with closing remarks.The interactive and informative sessions gave arbitration practitioners from China and Singapore an interesting insight into the trend of harmonization of different practices in the field of international commercial arbitration.19 September 2019 SIAC-KCAB Seoul Conference 2019By Arie Eernisse, Foreign Attorney, Shin KimThe SIAC-KCAB Seoul Conference 2019 was titled “Cross-Border Construction Disputes in 21st Century Asia” and attracted more than 70 practitioners, in-house counsel and professionals.Ms Seok Hui Lim (CEO, SIAC) opened the session, reporting that Korean parties are one of the top ten users of SIAC and that there are currently two members of the SIAC Court of Arbitration who are based in Korea. Mr Hi-Taek Shin (Chairman, KCAB International) followed with his opening address. He noted that Seoul is becoming a hub of international arbitration and that Korean construction companies have become frequent users of international arbitration, with approximately one-third of KCAB’s disputes arising from construction. He remarked that the availability of many dispute resolution options is a blessing, but it also means that careful planning is required.Panel Session I: Strategic Considerations When Pursuing Construction DisputesThe first panel session addressed strategic considerations in construction disputes, mainly at the onset of the dispute resolution process. Mr John P. Bang (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Senior Foreign Attorney, Bae, Kim Lee LLC) expertly moderated a panel comprising Mr Michael Ashcroft QC (Arbitrator and Barrister, Twenty Essex), Mr Im Byung Woo (Partner, Kim Chang), Mr Steven Y. H. Lim (Arbitrator and Barrister, 39 Essex Chambers), Mr Iain Potter (Director, MDD Forensic Accountants, Singapore), Mr Matthew Skinner (Partner, Jones Day), and Mr Thomas Walsh (Partner, Clifford Chance LLP).The panel began with an interactive panel exchange about adopting appropriate dispute resolution mechanisms. Mr Bang observed that early strategic choices are critical in large and complex construction disputes as such choices can make a difference in terms of how quickly the dispute is resolved, how resources are utilised and whether remedies are appropriate. Mr Walsh explained that he often sees arbitration clauses in construction contracts that involve various complications and that escalation clauses are common. Mr Im opined that escalation clauses have become necessary to save time and costs but cautioned that Korean companies should be aware of differences between the typical Korean style of mediation and mediation pursuant to an international construction contract’s step clause. Offering a critical view, Mr Skinner remarked that it is difficult to know the merits of the case at the early stages of a dispute and, thus, a requirement to mediate early in a dispute may be disadvantageous and put the parties at risk.Moving on to strategic considerations in the context of arbitration, the panellists discussed how companies are increasingly trying to ensure that they are covered by investor-state dispute resolution mechanisms. They also touched on the importance of using claims consultants or lawyers who evaluate claims when arbitration is being considered, and on the importance of ensuring that notice requirements are met (to avoid complete dismissal of claims despite lengthy arbitration proceedings).The panellists focused next on stays, anti-suit injunctions and court-ordered interim relief, as well as notable aspects of emergency arbitrator proceedings. Mr Lim gave a detailed and helpful overview of the current state of the law. Mr Ashcroft called anti-suit injunctions a powerful weapon for parties, but he stressed that timing is crucial and that delay itself may cause a party to lose an anti-suit injunction application. Offering a forensic accounting expert’s view, Mr Potter examined the pros and cons of using the same expert for interim relief and substantive issues.Further discussion ensued on pursuing investor-state arbitration in conjunction with, or in lieu of, commercial arbitration, third party funding for investment and commercial arbitration, and asserting claims against third parties and joining non-signatories.Left to Right: Michael Ashcroft QC, Iain Potter, Steven Y.H. Lim, John P. Bang, Byung Woo Im, Matthew Skinner and Thomas WalshLeft to Right: Braden Billiet, Chan Hock Keng, Chris Bailey, Sue Hyun Lim, Rob Palmer, Michael Lee and Eugene TanPanel Session II: Managing Proceedings and Proving Your Claims The second panel session, which was deftlymoderated by Ms Sue Hyun Lim (Secretary-General, KCAB International), featured as panellists Mr Chris Bailey (Partner, King Spalding), Mr Braden Billiet (Managing Director, FTI Consulting), Mr Chan Hock Keng (Partner, WongPartnership), Mr Michael Lee (Arbitrator, Twenty Essex), Mr Eugene Tan (Partner, Clyde Co Clasis Singapore) and Mr Rob Palmer (Office Managing Partner, Ashurst LLP).The discussion began with a focus on ancillary dispute proceedings and parallel proceedings, with the takeaway being that arbitrators and parties should take a cautious approach to these proceedings when they arise. On the issues of consolidation and joinder, the panellists suggested that where parties foresee the possibility of multiple related disputes between themselves, they should proactively adopt contract language that allows for more convenient resolution of disputes between them.Mr Billiet, a damages expert, next gave his views on the role of a technical expert, which he said was to assist the tribunal on matters within his or her expertise. When asked a question from the audience about a situation involving a tribunal that had ordered a single expert to give testimony on various disciplines, the panellists agreed that, in such a case, finding the right expert suited for the discipline on which expertise is required is important, and that experts should not stray outside the boundaries of their expertise.The panel then discussed some important procedural and logistical issues to bear in mind while managing proceedings. Mr Chan stressed the importance of adopting appropriate rules for document production (e.g., IBA Rules or Prague Rules) to benefit one’s client. Mr Lee hailed the use of a case management conference to raise the tribunal’s awareness of what the case is about from the start and to ensure that it is able to understand the key issues at the disclosure stage. Mr Palmer shared that construction disputes are document (and expert) heavy and that Asia’s increasingly diverse arbitral panels may take varied approaches to assessing the evidence. However, he said it should not be automatically assumed that they will adopt their home jurisdiction’s common practices, as there are various international norms that are followed as well (e.g., witness statements).Mr Palmer amusingly introduced the next topic with a quote from (the draconian) section 229 of Hammurabi’s Code (“If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its construction sound, and the house which he has built collapses and causes the death of the owner of the house, the builder shall be put to death”). Mr Bailey then shared some critical insights about the importance of understanding and recognizing tensions between FIDIC contracts (which have a common law approach in mind) and non-common-law applicable law. Mr Tan homed in on another cross-jurisdictional challenge: ensuring commencement of proceedings within the required period of time in a foreign jurisdiction, considering the variance in statute of limitations periods, rules on when to start calculating delay and rules on waiver. An exchange with an audience member from Vietnam highlighted the importance of being aware of such differences.Finally, Mr Billiet provided a concise and helpful overview of quantifying damages in a construction case, followed by Mr Bailey’s closing thoughts on the importance of taking a proactive approach to understanding how to address issues of damages and experts.Conclusion Both panels provided keen insights on a broad range of critically important topics for practitioners. Audience members not only gained numerous tips useful for construction arbitration practice but also a strategic framework for organizing this useful knowledge.17 September 2019 YSIAC-KCAB Next Seoul Workshop 2019Interim Relief in International Arbitration: Techniques, Tips and StrategiesBy Dipl.-Jur. Paolina P. Ilieva, Trainee Lawyer, Lee KoThis year’s YSIAC-KCAB Next Seoul Workshop 2019 tackled the topic of interim relief in international arbitration. The Workshop – titled Interim Relief in International Arbitration: Techniques, Tips and Strategies – attracted over 50 practitioners from the arbitration community in Korea and throughout Asia.The evening commenced with a Welcome Address by Dr Eun Young Park (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Partner, Kim Chang) that centered around a story from Greek mythology: the Judgment of Paris. According to the myth, an argument among three goddesses – Hera, Aphrodite and Athena – over which of them possessed unmatched beauty ultimately led to the Trojan War. The takeaway that Dr Park impressed upon the audience from this myth was that strong advocacy skills are key in the world of international arbitration, in the same way that they were essential to preventing a war in ancient times.Dr Park’s Welcome Address was followed by a brief Opening Address by Ms Michele Sonen (Head (North East Asia), SIAC). Ms Sonen introduced YSIAC and explained that the purpose of YSIAC is to provide young practitioners with a platform to learn, develop and enhance their skills as counsel and arbitrators.Ms Wendy Lin (Co-Chair, YSIAC Committee; Partner, WongPartnership LLP) followed Ms Sonen with an Introduction to the Panel Session. She noted that practitioners have strong feelings about interim relief; it can trigger both positive and negative emotions when practitioners are in the midst of seeking interim relief or defending their clients against an application lodged against them.Panel Session: Interim Relief: Techniques, Tips and Strategies.The panel session was moderated by Ms Wonyoung Karyn Yoo (Member, YSIAC Committee; Senior Associate, Kim Chang). Ms Yoo first invited Ms Dana Kim (Steering Committee Member, KCAB Next; Of Counsel, Herbert Smith Freehills) to open the session with a discussion of the different types of interim relief available in international arbitration. Ms Kim addressed issues such as which forums can grant interim relief; when is the appropriate time to seek interim relief; and what rules empower the Arbitral Tribunal to grant interim measures. Ms Kim also provided a checklist of practical considerations that an arbitration lawyer should bear in mind before turning to the Tribunal with a request for interim relief.Ms Kate Apostolova (Member, YSIAC Committee; Senior Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) also delivered valuable practical input from her experience as an arbitration practitioner. She outlined several factors that influence whether to seek interim measures from the domestic courts, an Arbitral Tribunal, or an Emergency Arbitrator. For instance, Ms Apostolova pointed out that when a party requires document production in order to support its application for interim relief, it may be more strategic to seek interim relief from national courts rather than an Emergency Arbitrator because the latter would most likely exclude the possibility of document production.Mr Steven Y. H. Lim (Arbitrator and Barrister, 39 Essex Chambers) continued the panel session by discussing the applicable legal standards for granting interim relief in an arbitration proceeding. He identified three legal standards that have been developed by international arbitration practice, and the similarities and differences between these tests.Left to Right: Wendy Lin, Wonyoung Karyn Yoo, Kate Apostolova, Michele Park Sonen, Mino Han, Dana Kim, Steven Y. H. Lim and Julia Jiyeon YuMembers of the audienceOn the question of why a party may need an interim measure from a domestic court, Mr Mino Han (Senior Associate, Bae, Kim Lee) enumerated five important considerations: 1. Enforceability 2. Ex parte applications 3. Prejudice 4. Time 5. Risk of amendments of the interim measure Mr Han further explained that certain common types of interim measures are not allowed in Korea, such as anti-arbitration injunctions or anti-suit injunctions.The topic of Emergency Arbitration was presented by Ms Kate Apostolova. She first revealed that the purpose of Emergency Arbitration is to provide urgent relief in the time between filing a Request for Arbitration and the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal, which in many cases could take months. Ms. Apostolova highlighted that SIAC was the first arbitral institution based in Asia to introduce the Emergency Arbitration procedure in 2010. Since then, nearly 100 applications have been filed with SIAC.The SIAC Rules require appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator (EA) within one calendar day and an award must be rendered by the EA within 14 days from his or her appointment. Mr Steven Lim shared his experience that the appointment of an EA can happen at any time, regardless of whether it is a weekend.On the topic of applicable standards before an EA, Ms Apostolova explained that all of the legal standards mentioned earlier by Mr Lim may also apply during an Emergency Arbitration, supplemented by one additional requirement: a party seeking emergency interim relief must demonstrate such urgency that the requested relief cannot await constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.Finally, Ms Julia Jiyeon Yu (Partner, Oon Bazul LLP) addressed the topic of non-compliance and enforceability of interim measures. Ms Yu drew the audience’s attention to the important question of whether to apply for interim relief from an Arbitral Tribunal or an EA even though that measure may lack enforceability in some national courts. In response, Ms Yu highlighted the extremely high rate of voluntary compliance with arbitral awards granting interim measures, as parties generally seek to avoid casting a dark shadow on their case that may negatively affect the later stages of the arbitration.After the panel session, Ms Sonen concluded the event with brief closing remarks thanking the panelists for the lively discussion and for sharing their experiences. The YSIAC-KCAB Next Workshop 2019 left the attendees with a better understanding of interim measures in international arbitration.17 September 2019SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the East China University of Political Science and LawThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the East China University of Political Science and Law (ECUPL).Under the MOU, SIAC and ECUPL will work together to place law students from ECUPL in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and ECUPL will collaborate to incorporate a module on "SIAC and Institutional Arbitration" into the ECUPL law programme. Upon request by SIAC or ECUPL, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in China to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.The MOU was entered into during a signing ceremony on 17 September 2019 at the SIAC-Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC) Conference 2019, and was signed by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Ms Chen Jingying, Vice President of ECUPL. During the signing ceremony, Ms Chen signed the MOU on behalf of ECUPL, and Mr Liu Rundong, Deputy Head (China) of SIAC, affixed the SIAC seal to the MOU. The signing ceremony was witnessed by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Deputy Chairman of SIAC.Ms Chen Jingying, Vice President of ECUPL, said, "We believe this MOU will enable our students to learn from one of the world's top arbitral institutions, and look forward to working closely with SIAC to nurture and develop future generations of talented young arbitration practitioners in China."Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, "We are honoured and delighted to be entering into this MOU with ECUPL, a leading Chinese academic institution. We are confident that this collaboration will enable us to contribute further towards the development of international arbitration in China and foster closer ties within the Chinese arbitration community."For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg12 September 2019SIAC-CIL Academic-Practitioner ColloquiumMr Csaba Kovács’ presentation of his paper titled “Attribution of the Conduct of State-owned Enterprises to the State”By Lexi Menish and Samantha Tan, Freshfields Bruckhaus DeringerIntroductionThe 3rd SIAC-CIL Academic-Practitioner Colloquium brought to life a critical but complex and often misunderstood international investment law question: when is a State responsible for the conduct of a separate legal entity?This question is obviously fraught with uncertainty. The apparent irreconcilabilities in the arbitral case law on attribution inspired Mr Csaba Kovács to dive in and attempt to make sense of it all in his book, Attribution in International Investment Law, the first published monograph dedicated to this topic.The Colloquium’s panellists reviewed Mr Kovács’ book and peppered him with challenging questions on the topic. The esteemed Vice-President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration; Director of the Centre for International Law (Singapore), Professor Lucy Reed, told us in her opening address that the Academic-Practitioner Colloquium was designed for that very purpose, for academics to gather comments from practitioners on their work, and for cross-pollination of ideas between legal academics and practitioners. Mr Kovács was impressive. In the spirit of lively discourse, the discussion at times resembled a cross-examination, and Mr Kovács defended his publication valiantly.The general focus of the panel was the question of how satisfactory the International Law Commission’s Draft articles on Responsibility of States for International Wrongful Acts (ILC Articles) are as the generally accepted rules for attributing conduct to a State. The Colloquium also addressed, on the flipside of attribution, when a State-owned enterprise should be precluded from bringing a claim against another State under an investment treaty.This discussion among experts in this complex area of law was intellectually rigorous, yet elegantly translated into easy-to-understand pieces, including by the moderator, Mr Toby Landau QC (whose light-hearted interjections in this substantive two-hour session were no doubt appreciated by the audience).Mr Kovács’ introduction to his paperTo frame the panel discussion, Mr Kovács introduced the premise: a State can be responsible for internationally wrongful conduct only if it consists of an action or an omission that is attributable to the State under international law.Mr Kovács then explained the legal framework for answering the question of when conduct is attributable to the State under international law: special rules in the treaty under which the claim against the State has been brought, i.e., lex specialis; and, in the absence of express treaty wording, the ILC Articles.Under the ILC Articles, Mr Kovács explained, an act can be attributed to the State if the person performing the act:exercises governmental powers delegated by the State in relation to this act (Article 5); oracts on the instructions, or under the direction or control, of the State (Article 8).Mr Kovács then discussed the challenges commonly faced in applying the ILC Articles to the infinitely diverse structures that States adopt to conduct their affairs.Mr Kovács introduced Article 4 of the ILC Articles as focusing on the entity in question, rather than on its act. He explained:to equate a State-owned enterprise with a State organ when it does not have that status under internal law must be “exceptional”, requiring “proof of a particularly great degree of State control over them”, i.e., a relationship of “complete dependence”; andinvestment tribunals have identified a number of factors that could indicate that a State-owned enterprise is a State organ, such as its establishment by law, lack of separate legal personality, lack of institutional or operational independence, performance of core governmental functions, lack of separate patrimony, lack of financial autonomy, and its being subject to judicial review or governmental oversight, but not its ownership or control of shareholding by the State.On Article 5 of the ILC Articles, Mr Kovács discussed the trickiness of determining whether an act was commercial or sovereign, only the latter of which would be the basis for State responsibility. He postulated the following rebuttable presumptions based on the arbitral jurisprudence:an act is commercial if a private entity in an open, competitive market could also perform it, even if such act serves a general interest; andan act is governmental if it concerns an asset or activity normally reserved to the State, even if such act was performed through contractual or commercial means.On Article 8, Mr Kovács distinguished between conduct carried out on the State’s instructions—which he said covers only express instructions—and conduct carried out under the State’s direction or control—which he said requires the State to have directed or controlled the specific operation of which the impugned conduct was an integral part. He highlighted that there may also be an additional requirement that the State-owned enterprise’s exercise of public powers or the State’s use of its ownership interest or control of a State-owned enterprise was “to achieve a particular result”.Mr Kovács concluded that the investment arbitration jurisprudence showed that the ILC Articles were widely accepted and largely applied consistently to determine attribution, and that the expansion of the current scope of such attribution rules is unlikely, although their application requires flexibility.Mr Colin Liew, Advocate, Essex Court Chambers Duxton, commented that the test of control used for the Article 4 analysis had been doubted by a decision of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in which it formulated an alternative “overall control” test. Mr Liew also observed that according to the jurisprudence, in less than “exceptional” cases entities have also been deemed to be State organs under Article 4.Mr Kovács agreed that the tribunals in Flemingo DutyFree Shop v Poland and Ampal-American Israel et al v Egypt had indeed found State-owned entities to be State organs despite their being separate legal entities. He opined, however, that those cases are outliers and context-specific. Mr Kovács explained that in Flemingo, for example, Poland had made concessions that the entity in question performed strategic functions for the State that could not be transferred to a private party, and such evidence is rare. Mr Landau added that the “complete dependence” test was adopted from the Nicaragua decision by the International Court of Justice about State control over conduct in a State-State dispute, which might not apply in the same way in an investor-State context.Left to Right: Prof Vincent-Joel Proulx, Nicholas Lingard, Csaba Kovacs, Toby Landau QC, Darius Chan and Colin LiewMembers of the audienceProf Vincent-Joel Proulx, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, raised a series of questions about ILC Article 5, including how control and supervision come into play in the application of Article 5. The Commentary to the ILC Articles notes that executive control over the conduct in question is not a determinative factor, whereas World Trade Organisation (WTO) arbitration jurisprudence suggests that “meaningful control” is relevant, and some arbitral tribunals (e.g., EnCana v Ecuador) emphasised the importance of statutory supervision by the State over the delegated activity. He also queried the relationship between Article 5 and the lex specialis of a particular investment treaty, asking to what extent a treaty can displace Article 5.Mr Kovács and some of the other panellists engaged in a lively discussion of the first question, with Mr Kovács explaining that tribunals do tend to treat supervision and/or control as relevant, noting that the extent, rather than the existence of control, appears to be most relevant, and that executive control is not required, but accountability to the State is. Mr Landau asked whether supervision was also relevant, and Mr Kovács replied that some tribunals have considered it as a relevant, but not determinative, factor. Mr Landau also observed that the test under Article 5 is whether an entity is exercising a delegated, sovereign function, and queried the relevance of supervision and control to that analysis, to which Mr Lingard added that the focus of Article 5 is the conduct itself, and thus supervision or control would appear to be irrelevant. Mr Nicholas Lingard, Partner and Head of the International Arbitration Group in Asia, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, explained that although satisfaction of any of the Article 4, Article 5 or Article 8 tests is sufficient to establish attribution, States often prefer to “lose” on Article 8, as a finding of attribution on the basis of Article 8 is limited to the facts of the particular case. On the other hand, a finding under Articles 4 or 5 that a State enterprise was a State organ or was exercising a governmental function could be used in subsequent cases. Mr Lingard then queried the distinction under Article 8 between “acting on the instructions of” versus “under the direction or control of” the State. Mr Lingard pointed out that on one view, an instruction must be “binding and express”, evidence of which can be hard to come by, but may cover non-sovereign conduct, whereas according to the ILC Commentary to Article 8, conduct “under the direction or control” of the State must be sovereign in nature.Mr Lingard also discussed the Al Tamimi v Oman tribunal’s failure to engage Article 8 on the basis that the scope of the applicable treaty—the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement—was expressly limited to where a State enterprise or other person “exercises any regulatory, administrative or other governmental authority delegated to it by that Party”, and therefore could be deemed to have excluded the applicability of Article 8. Mr Lingard explored related language in other investment treaties that arguably could be read to exclude liability on the basis of Article 8 (e.g., the 2012 US Model BIT).Mr Kovács acknowledged the observation and agreed that an investment treaty, as lex specialis, could displace certain ILC Articles if the treaty parties so agreed.Mr Darius Chan, Of Counsel, Norton Rose Fulbright, discussed attribution as it applied to State-owned entities as claimants in ICSID proceedings. Recourse to ICSID jurisdiction is limited to “nationals” of an ICSID Contracting State other than the respondent State. Whether a State-owned entity can qualify as a “national” (and thus a claimant) is often determined by the so-called “Broches Test”, which holds that a State-owned entity may qualify as a “national” for the purposes of the ICSID Convention unless it is “acting as an agent for the government” (i.e., ILC Article 8) or “is discharging an essentially governmental function” (i.e., ILC Article 5). Mr Chan queried both: (a) whether an ICSID tribunal should consider both the nature and purpose of the State-owned entity’s activity when applying the Broches Test; and (b) to what extent the applicable bilateral investment treaty (BIT), if it includes State-owned entities within the definition of “investor”, should be conclusive in an ICSID arbitration. As to the former, interesting questions arise in the context of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, in which Chinese State-owned entities are making investments that can be characterised as having a commercial nature, but which the Chinese government has billed as having an arguably public purpose.With respect to Mr Chan’s question as to nature versus purpose, Mr Kovács opined that purpose is a factor tribunals will consider, but is not generally determinative: the nature of the State-owned entity’s investment activity typically carries more weight. On Mr Chan’s second point regarding the definition of “investor” in BITs, Mr Kovács analogised other jurisdictional hurdles under the ICSID Convention, such as the dual-national test or the so-called “double-barrelled” test for the inherent characteristics of “investment” under ICSID Convention Article 25, and suggested that irrespective of whether State-owned entities may bring claims under the applicable BIT, the ICSID Convention’s jurisdictional requirements must still be satisfied.ConclusionQuestions from the audience followed, including a particularly interesting question about the relationship between the ILC Articles and traditional veil-piercing analysis under municipal law. Upon conclusion of the Q A, the discussion continued informally over drinks long into the evening. The Colloquium clearly resonated and gave the participants and attendees plenty of food for thought.2 September 2019SIAC holds SIAC India Summit in New DelhiThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) held a two-day SIAC India Summit titled “Modern Trends and Perspectives on Investor-State and International Commercial Arbitration” on 30 and 31 August 2019. Day 1 of the Summit featured an inaugural conference on Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) which focused on the future of ISDS in Asia and the state of play for investment arbitration in India. International commercial arbitration took centre stage on Day 2 of the Summit at SIAC’s annual India flagship event which examined recent arbitration developments in India and the use of institutional procedures to deal with emerging issues in international arbitration. SIAC was honoured to have Mr. K. Shanmugam, SC, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Singapore, and Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, Minister of Law Justice, Communications and Electronics Information Technology, India, grace the Summit. Minister Shanmugam delivered the Opening Addresses on both days, Minister Prasad delivered the Special Address, and the Honourable Justice Rohinton Nariman, Judge, Supreme Court of India, delivered the Keynote Address at SIAC’s annual international commercial arbitration conference on Day 2 of the Summit. The Honourable Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Retired Judge, Supreme Court of India, participated as a panellist at the ISDS conference. Mr Edwin Tong, SC, Senior Minister of State, Ministry of Law Ministry of Health, Singapore, also attended the Summit. Mr Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC, delivered the Welcome Addresses for both events, and Mr Gary Born, President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration, delivered the Keynote Address at the inaugural ISDS conference.The Summit featured a stellar-lineup of SIAC Board and Court members as well as other international arbitration luminaries including Prof. Bernard Hanotiau, Mr Tejas Karia, Mr Darius Khambata, SC, Mr Toby Landau QC, Mr Rajiv Luthra, Ms Shaneen Parikh, and Mr Michael Hwang, SC.Close to 600 delegates attended the Summit. For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg30 August 2019SIAC India Summit 2019 - Investor State ArbitrationBy Abhijnan Jha, Senior Associate, AZB PartnersThe two-day SIAC India Summit 2019 titled “Modern Trends and Perspectives on Investor State Dispute Settlement and International Commercial Arbitration” opened with an inaugural conference on Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) which featured a star-studded line-up of speakers. More than 250 delegates including practitioners, in-house counsel, professionals and students were in attendance on the first day of the Summit.Mr. Davinder Singh, SC, Chairman of SIAC and Executive Chairman, Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, gave the welcome address, which was followed by the opening address by Mr. K. Shanmugam, SC, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law, Singapore, and the keynote address by Mr. Gary Born, President, SIAC Court of Arbitration and Chair, International Arbitration Practice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.Panel Session I: Future of ISDS in AsiaThe first panel session was moderated by Dr. Rishab Gupta, Partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas.The panellists were Justice B.N. Srikrishna (Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India), Mr Gary Born, Professor Bernard Hanotiau, Partner, Hanotiau and Van Den Berg, and Mr. Andre Yeap, SC, Senior Partner, Rajah and Tann Singapore LLP.In this session, the panellists discussed major developments in treaty-making in the Asia Pacific region, multilateral investment courts, the current ISDS regime, third party funding in ISDS, the role of ISDS in addressing disputes arising from the Belt and Road Initiative, and diversity in arbitrator appointments.Left to Right: Gary Born, Prof Bernard Hanotiau, Hon’ble Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Dr Rishab Gupta and Andre Yeap, SCMembers of the audiencePanel Session II: Speed Round: The State of Play of Investment Arbitration in India (Part A)The second panel session was moderated by Ms. Shaneen Parikh, Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration and Partner, Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.The panellists were Mr. Toby Landau QC, Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Barrister Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) and Essex Court Chambers (London), Mr. Abhileen Chaturvedi, Associate Partner, Economic Laws Practice, Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Founder and Managing Partner, DMD Advocates, and Mr. Kent Phillips, Partner, Hogan Lovells.In this session, the panellists discussed the state of play of investment arbitration in India with a special focus on the new India model bilateral investment treaty, parallel proceedings, anti-arbitration injunctions, and enforcement of investment treaty awards.Left to Right: Anuradha Dutt, Toby Landau, QC, Shaneen Parikh, Kent Phillips and Abhileen ChaturvediLeft to Right: Shwetha Bidhuri, Arvind Datar, SA, Prakash Pillai and Romesh WeeramantryPanel Session III: Speed Round: The State of Play of Investment Arbitration in India (Part B)The final panel session on investment arbitration was moderated by Mr. Prakash Pillai, Partner, Clyde Co Clasis Singapore.The panellists were Ms. Shwetha Bidhuri, Head (South Asia), SIAC, Mr. Arvind Datar, SA, Madras High Court, and Dr. Romesh Weeramantry, Counsel, Clifford Chance. In this session, the panellists discussed the evolution of the current landscape of bilateral investment treaties in India, the impact of change in India’s approach towards investor protection on the inflow of foreign direct investment, protection of investors investing outside India and exclusion of tax measures from investment treaties.Mr. Rajiv Luthra, Member, SIAC Board of Directors; Founder and Managing Partner, L L Partners, concluded Day 1 of the Summit with closing remarks in his inimitable style.16 August 2019SIAC Announces the Appointment of New Co-Deputy Head (China)The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that Ms Sophia Liu Jianying has been appointed to the position of Co-Deputy Head (China). Ms Liu joins Mr Leo Liu Rundong who is the current Deputy Head (China).Both the China representatives are based in SIAC’s Shanghai office, and are responsible for promoting the development of international arbitration through arbitration events and training programmes in China.Prior to joining SIAC, Sophia practised in the fields of arbitration, litigation and finance at various law firms in China.Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are delighted to welcome Sophia to the SIAC team. Her combined disputes and transactional experience will bring a commercially nuanced perspective to her role, which will further enhance and cement our ties within the international arbitration community in China."For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg5 August 2019SIAC-SCIA Seminar on ‘’Effective Dispute Resolution for Greater Bay Area Companies Investing in ASEAN’’By Kevin Elbert, Associate, TSMP Law CorporationOn 5 August 2019, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) organised a seminar titled ‘’Effective Dispute Resolution for Greater Bay Area Companies Investing in ASEAN’’. The topic for the seminar was particularly appropriate in view of the signing of the Singapore Mediation Convention on 7 August 2019, and the seminar was well attended by guests from all around the world who visited Singapore to witness the signing of the Singapore Mediation Convention.The session was opened by Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) who delivered the welcome address. Ms Lim said that SIAC is well-positioned to support the commercial needs of Chinese investors, companies and businesses involved in cross-border projects and investments, particularly in the context of the Belt and Road Initiative. SIAC has many arbitrators who are proficient in Chinese and have handled Chinese cases, and there are eminent Chinese international arbitration practitioners on the SIAC Court of Arbitration. As China takes centre stage in the global economy, SIAC is looking forward to deepening ties with its Chinese partners.This was followed by an opening address by Mr Anthony Neoh QC, SC (Vice Chairman, SCIA). Mr Neoh emphasised the importance of the Greater Bay Area in the global economy. For instance, Shenzhen is now the base for many important international companies. This means that there is an important role for Shenzhen to take the lead in promoting the dispute resolution processes in the area. To further this aim, SCIA is looking forward to forming more collaborations with its global partners in the future.Gift exchange between Anthony Neoh, QC, SC andLim Seok HuiMembers of the audiencePanel Session I: Trends and Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution Involving BRI Investments in ASEAN CountriesThe first panel discussed the issue of trends and recent developments in ASEAN countries: Dr Christopher Boog (Partner, Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd) moderated a panel comprising Mr Chan Hock Keng (Partner, WongPartnership LLP), Mr Armstrong Chen (Senior Partner, Dentons Law Offices (Shanghai)), Ms Lexi Menish (Senior Associate, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) and Mr Tony Zhang (Senior Partner, Co-Effort Law Firm LLP).The panel session started with the question: why is arbitration appropriate for BRI investments for ASEAN countries. Ms Menish explained that arbitration is appropriate because of factors such as neutrality and enforceability. Neutrality is especially important because disputes relating to infrastructure and projects often involve a state-owned entity and one may not want to litigate in the national courts. Mr Zhang added that due to the enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention, arbitration is also an appealing choice for Chinese parties.Left to Right: Chan Hock Keng, Lexi Menish,Dr Christopher Boog, Armstrong Chen and Zhen-an (Tony) ZhangLeft to Right: Simon Dunbar, Jiong (John) Liu, Chan Leng Sun, SC, Prof Dr Peter Malanczuk and Dr Yifei LinOn the topic of choice of institution, Mr Chen pointed out that while European parties prefer traditional institutions such as ICC or HKIAC, and Chinese parties would prefer a Chinese arbitration commission, the trend is now to pick a neutral option such as SIAC. However, at the end of the day, parties’ main concerns are costs and efficiency of the arbitral proceedings and parties will generally opt for the most cost-competitive and most efficient institution.Ms Menish added that in response to BRI investments, institutions have modified their rules, citing the recent update to the HKIAC rules to allow for consolidation of multiple contracts. There is also an arrangement for the enforcement of interim measures between Hongkong and mainland China. Mr Zhang then discussed how China is amending its arbitration laws and practices to meet the needs and expectations of international users, such as an internal court system for enforcement whereby the lower courts would report to the upper courts on their decisions on enforcement of arbitral awards, to ensure consistency in the application of law.From arbitration, the topic then moved on to commercial courts. Dr Boog started the discussion by asking what role commercial courts such as the Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) can play in BRI disputes involving ASEAN parties. Mr Chan responded that SICC can be used for BRI disputes, but parties have to agree to bring their case to SICC so as to have foreign judges hear the case. Mr Chen commented on the Chinese International Commercial Courts (CICC), noting that the benefit of referring disputes to CICC is potentially easier enforcement in China. The Chinese state-owned enterprises in particular would prefer to refer their disputes to CICC.Panel Session II: Procedural Tips, Techniques and Strategies in International Arbitration for BRI DisputesThe second panel discussed tips, techniques and strategies in international arbitration for BRI disputes. The panel was moderated by Dr Yifei Lin (Principal Consultant, Guangdong Yi Partners Law Firm), and the panellists were Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC (Senior Counsel and Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers Duxton), Mr Simon Dunbar (Partner, King Spalding), Mr Jiong (John) Liu (Senior Partner, AllBright Law Offices) and Prof Dr Peter Malanczuk (SCIA, Council Member).The first topic that the panel touched on was interim measures and emergency arbitration. Mr Chan started off the topic by sharing that in Singapore, interim measures can be granted by the courts and tribunals, but the tricky tactical decision in arbitration is where to seek such measures, which would be dependent on the facts of each case.On the topic of investor-state dispute settlement, Dr Malanczuk shared that in China there are distinctions between treaty-based claims and contract-based claims. Treaty-based claims are excluded from the purview of CICC, but the position is not so clear in respect of contract-based claims. This may give rise to issues of parallel proceedings.On procedural strategies, Mr Dunbar spoke about the importance of the seat and selection of arbitrators. The seat determines the legal regime of the arbitration due to the role of the supervisory court, and convenience should not be a factor to determine the seat. On the selection of arbitrators, parties have to consider factors such as the expertise of the arbitrator.Mr Liu commented on interim measures in China. Even though obtaining interim measures locally may be easy, enforcing a tribunal order on interim measures may be difficult. Parties also need to know whether there are assets to be enforced against in the jurisdiction.The panel ended with an audience discussion on online dispute resolution. All the panellists agreed that the use of technology in arbitration such as e-discovery should be encouraged.1 August 2019SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the University of MalayaThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the University of Malaya (UM) Faculty of Law.Under the MOU, SIAC and UM will work together to place law students from UM in internships at SIAC. In addition, SIAC and UM will collaborate to incorporate a module on "SIAC and Institutional Arbitration" into the UM law programme. Upon request by SIAC or UM, both parties will also conduct joint training programmes, seminars, workshops or other events in Malaysia to promote the development and practice of international arbitration.The MOU was signed on 1 August 2019, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Dato' Associate Professor Dr Johan Shamsuddin Bin Hj Sabaruddin (Dato' Dr Johan Shamsuddin), Dean of UM Faculty of Law.Dato' Dr Johan Shamsuddin, Dean of UM Faculty of Law, said, "Following the recent collaboration between UM Faculty of Law and SIAC to jointly host the highly successful Kuala Lumpur edition of the SIAC Academy in March 2019, we look forward to deepening our cooperation efforts to cultivate and promote the benefits of international arbitration to future generations of international arbitration experts in Malaysia."Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, "We are honoured and delighted to be given the opportunity to work closely with UM, a premier Malaysian academic institution. Malaysian parties have consistently ranked amongst SIAC's top ten foreign users, and Malaysia is a key market for us. This partnership provides an excellent platform for SIAC to contribute further towards the development of international arbitration in Malaysia and to forge closer ties with key stakeholders in the Malaysian arbitration community.For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg05 July 2019SIAC Jakarta Conference 2019By Julia Nugroho, Senior Associate, Dewi Negara Fachri Partners (in association with Hogan Lovells)The SIAC Jakarta Conference 2019 was titled "Damages in International Arbitration: Contemporary Principles and Practices" and it attracted over 200 participants, including in-house counsel and professionals.Mr. Kevin Nash (Deputy Registrar Centre Director, SIAC) opened the session noting the release of the SIAC Rules 2016 which sought to make arbitration faster and more efficient. SIAC has arguably handled more Emergency Arbitration applications than any other jurisdiction in the world, and was the first commercial arbitration institution to release the early dismissal procedure for claims and defences. SIAC also has a robust provision for joinder and consolidation provisions.Mr. Cavinder Bull, SC (Vice President of SIAC Court of Arbitration) followed with the opening address noting the stellar performance of SIAC in 2018. In 2017, Singapore was ranked the 3rd most preferred seat of arbitration in the world, and SIAC was the 3rd most preferred arbitration institution in the world. Parties need to have an effective way to resolve cross border transactions, and arbitration has proven to be the best solution to resolve those disputes. Arbitration gives us, among others, a flexible procedure, speedy resolution, low cost, suitability for complex dispute, confidentiality, and international enforceability.Panel Session I: Contemporary Damages Principles in International ArbitrationThe first panel discussed the contemporary damages principles. Dr. Mohamed Idwan (‘Kiki’) Gani (Managing Partner of Lubis Ganie Surowidjojo) moderated a panel of distinguished speakers comprising Mr. Andi Kadir (Partner of HHP Law Firm), Mr. Ignatius Andy S.H. (Partner, Ignatius Andy Law Offices), Mr. Simon Barrie Sasmoyo (Senior Associate of Assegaf Hamzah Partners), and Mr. Simon Dunbar (Partner of King Spalding).Mr. Andy discussed the damages that can be recovered for a breach of contract claim which under Indonesian Civil Code (ICC) is comprised of compensation of cost, loss, and interest. An interesting point raised by Mr. Andi Kadir was the good faith concept in Indonesia and whether it is the “unruly horse” of the ICC. Good faith principle has been used to relax the application of the ICC, to make certain deviation on the calculation of damages. In relation to this, Indonesian courts do not provide a clear reasoning and do not provide a clear threshold when the parties and the court can invoke the notion of good faith. If there is a violation of justice, the court has the authority to apply the notion of good faith to rectify or remedy the situation, and it is in line with the principle of justice. This may create legal uncertainty. Similar concerns may also be noted from the open-ended notion of the public policy concept.Mr. Sasmoyo continued the session by sharing his experience and practical tips. Based on his experience, he has seen the Tribunal grant liquidated damages because it is a more reasonable calculation by the parties as opposed to a penalty, which is punitive in nature. Therefore, stipulating exorbitant figures (e.g., twice or triple the contract amount) in the penalty clause would not be wise.Mr. Dunbar discussed examples of typical damages clauses in a contract. Limitation of liability, no consequential loss, and liquidated damages provisions are generally treated as boilerplate provisions but have significant impact on the economics of the transaction. He emphasised the importance of clarity on what you want to exclude in the contract.Left to Right: Ignatius Andy S.H., Simon Dunbar, Dr Mohamed Idwan (‘Kiki’) Ganie, Andi Kadir and Simon Barrie SasmoyoMembers of the audiencePanel Session II: Quantifying Damages in Post-M A DisputesThe second panel focused on quantifying damages in post M A disputes, and was moderated by Mr. Cavinder Bull, SC. The speakers were Mr. Oommen Mathew (Managing Partner of DWF LLP), Mr. Iain Potter (MDD Forensic Accountants), Mr. Ajinderpal Singh (Senior Partner of Denton Rodyks Davidson LLP), and Mr. Kabir Singh (Partner of Clifford Chance).Mr. Mathew gave an overview on proof of damages including the preservation of evidence and providing the evidence in arbitration. Post-M A disputes often arise out of breach of warranty provisions, fraudulent misrepresentation, and valuation or tax disputes. As such, the examination of the relevant documentary evidence would be crucial. Mr. Kabir Singh advised that being aware of the local limitation period is very important in the transaction. Mr. Ajinderpal Singh also shared practical insights on clauses relating to warranties by the seller, fraudulent misrepresentation, seller's limitation of liability, and notice period.Left to Right: Oommen Mathew, Iain Potter,Cavinder Bull, SC, Ajinderpal Singh and Kabir SinghLeft to Right: Rob Palmer, Tony Budidjaja,Chong Yee Leong and James TaylorPanel Session III: Assessment of Damages in Construction DisputesThe last session of the conference was moderated by Mr. Chong Yee Leong (Member of SIAC Board of Directors). The panel members were Mr. Tony Budidjaja (Managing Partner of Budidjaja International Lawyers), Mr. Rob Palmer (Office Managing Partner of Ashurst LLP), and Mr. James Taylor (Senior Managing Director of FTI Consulting).Mr. Taylor explained that typical causes of construction disputes generally include, among others, variation order, suspension of work, defective works, and payment delay. Mr. Palmer then explained the concept of concurrent delay in a construction project. In the Indonesian context, it can be contractually agreed by the parties to "share the risk". Finally, Mr. Budidjdja commented that the use of experts on the subject matter is needed because construction disputes are generally highly technical in nature and may require intensive fact-investigation. He also emphasised that the quality of the expert report will determine the speed of the arbitration proceedings.The interesting and very informative conference concluded with brief closing remarks from Mr Chong.24 June 2019SIAC – SHCCIE Seminar 2019By John Liu, Senior Partner, AllBright Law OfficesThe SIAC – SHCCIE Seminar 2019 was titled “Advancing the BRI: Navigating the Legal Landscape”, and attracted around 50 practitioners, in-house counsel and professionals.Ms. Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) opened the session, reporting the outstanding performance of SIAC in 2018, as well as its excellent people (the SIAC Court of Arbitration and the SIAC Secretariat) and the state-of-the-art hearing facilities in Maxwell Chambers. Mr. Tony Zhang (Deputy Chairman, Shanghai Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export (“SHCCIE”)) followed with the opening address. He first reported the recent achievements and developments of the SHCCIE and then expressed the hope of continuing future event collaborations with SIAC.Panel Session : Managing the Legal Risks and Use of Effective Dispute Resolution for BRI InvestmentsDr. Li Shen (Chief Legal Officer, Noah Holdings) began with a speech titled “Private Equity Fund Investment Mode and Legal Risk Control in BRI Investment”. He introduced the advantages of PE investment, including the advantages of information in the industry sector, reducing the political risks of investment, broadening the channels of fund raising, and providing professional technology for mergers and acquisitions. He also stressed the risks in private equity investment, such as the short-term and medium-term risks of debt of leveraged buyouts, insider trading and the related moral risks, and the risks of the capital operations of the acquired enterprises. After that, he further emphasized the importance of selecting an internationally well-regarded arbitration institution, as the arbitration awards issued by a reputable arbitral institution are more likely to be recognized and enforced by other contracting States of the New York Convention.Mr. David Gu (Partner, Tiantong Law Firm) then delivered a presentation titled “Introduction to International Arbitration for Chinese Enterprises: Arbitration Institutions, Arbitration Clauses and Arbitrators”. Mr. Gu gave a brief introduction to relevant aspects of international arbitration, in which the importance of selecting arbitrators was highlighted, as well as strategies and tips in the selection process. He also emphasized that parties should pay attention to the selection of arbitration institutions, the update of the rules of arbitration institutions and the constitution of arbitral tribunals. With regard to drafting of the dispute resolution clause, reference could be made to the model clauses of arbitration institutions.Mr. John Liu (Senior Partner, AllBright Law Offices) spoke on the topic “Risk Prevention in Overseas Investments by Chinese Enterprises”. He pointed out that risk prevention could be divided into three levels. The first level is prevention in advance, namely compliance framework. If an enterprise completes compliance framework at an early stage, it could better avoid risks later. The second level is in-process prevention, which means the prevention awareness of relevant issues in the process, especially in the process of international trade. When encountering problems or potential risks, companies should work out how to respond. The third level is the post-event remedy. When disputes occur, companies should actively seek professional advice to resolve the disputes. The Chinese enterprises which go abroad should pay more attention to risk prevention.After that, Mr. Nicholas Lum, Partner of Ince (Shanghai/Singapore offices) spoke on “The Notion of International Commercial Arbitration to Chinese Companies: Demystifying the Myths and Bridging the Cultural and Legal Differences”. He shared with the audience three (3) key points that Chinese companies need to keep in mind when “going out” and embarking on BRI projects. First, Chinese companies should be careful about using modest / non-confrontational tones (or not respond at all) as that may, at law, be argued to be behaviour viewed as concession or admission of fault, when there has clearly been no such intention at all. It was crucial to ensure that positions are properly set out and a proper paper trail established from the outset. Second, during the disclosure process in international arbitration, all evidence deemed relevant to the proceedings had to be disclosed, notwithstanding that such evidence may be adverse to one’s own case. This process has to be properly explained to Chinese companies, which may not be used to the same. Finally, the cross-examination of factual witnesses and experts in international arbitrations is a crucial part of a hearing - this is again quite different from a typical court or arbitration hearing in mainland China, and should be brought to the attention of Chinese companies.Mr. Tony Zhang (Senior Partner, Co-effort Law Firm) gave a presentation on “Considerations for Selecting the Seat of Arbitration”. He pointed out that there are many legal, technical and procedural issues involved when choosing the seat of arbitration. The seat of arbitration determines the national court that has power to order interim measures in support of the arbitration, determine challenges of arbitrators and set aside the award, etc. During an arbitration, more attention should be paid to issues such as challenges of arbitrators and disclosure of challenge decisions. Therefore, he highly recommended arbitration institutions to disclose such information so as to ensure the transparency and fairness of the arbitration process.Ms. Jianying Liu (Deputy Head (China), SIAC) moderated a panel comprising Mr. David Gu, Mr. John Liu, Mr. Nicolas Lum and Mr. Tony Zhang. The panelists shared valuable insights on dealing with disputes arising out of cross-border investments. Mr. Gu said that large companies should build a robust team with professional in-house counsel to deal with arbitration cases instead of entirely relying on outside attorneys. Mr. Liu emphasized that enterprises needed to pay more attention to the selection of arbitrators and drafting of arbitration clauses, equip themselves with more knowledge and skills to be fully prepared for unforeseen challenges. Mr. Lum advised that in-house counsel of Chinese companies should take note of pertinent clauses in cross-border contracts (governed by common law) which may be interpreted differently from what one would expect under the Chinese civil law regime. In the event that a matter resulted in a dispute, Mr. Lum stressed that it was vital that suitable steps be taken (whether strategic or legal in nature) to try and resolve it promptly, which would no doubt result in a saving of time and costs for parties. Mr. Zhang indicated that as the world of international arbitration is a professional playing field,practitioners experienced in arbitration should be engaged to represent the parties in an international arbitration case.Mr Leo Liu Rundong, Deputy Head (China), SIAC concluded the event with brief closing remarks.6 June 2019SIAC Announces Appointment of New Court MembersThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce the appointment of new members to its Court of Arbitration.Fourteen new members have been appointed to SIAC's Court of Arbitration, which continues under the leadership of Mr Gary Born as its President. The new Court members are:SIAC would like to express its heartfelt thanks and appreciation to the three outgoing Court members, Mr Paul Friedland, Mr Emmanuel Gaillard, and Mr Jan Paulsson, as well as the outgoing Board member, Mr Nishith Desai, for their dedication, commitment and unstinting support. During their term of service, SIAC achieved a number of significant milestones, notably its ranking as the 3rd most preferred arbitral institution in the world in the prestigious Queen Mary University of London and White Case International Arbitration Survey, which underscores its position as the most preferred arbitral institution in Asia.SIAC's Board of Directors continues under the chairmanship of Mr Davinder Singh, SC, who commented, “I would like to thank our outgoing director, Nishith, for his invaluable contributions to SIAC. I am delighted to be working again with Gary, my fellow Board members and the team at SIAC to continue to deliver the highest levels of service and innovation to users all over the world.”Mr Gary Born said of the new Court appointments, “We are indebted to our outgoing Court members, Emmanuel, Jan and Paul, for their hard work and tremendous contributions. It is a great pleasure to be working again with Davinder, the Court and the SIAC team. I extend a warm welcome to our new Court members whose illustrious reputations and stature in the international arbitration community and deep specialist knowledge across diverse legal systems and cultures will ensure that SIAC remains at the forefront of cutting-edge developments in the law and practice of commercial as well as investment arbitration.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “We are extremely grateful to the Board and the Court for their extraordinary efforts and contributions in putting SIAC firmly on the world map, and wish to express our special thanks to Davinder and Gary for their visionary, and truly inspirational, leadership and guidance. With their wealth of experience and unmatched dynamism, we are confident that SIAC will burnish its standing as a global leader in dispute resolution services.”The members of SIAC's Board of Directors are as follows: Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC – Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice), Singapore (Deputy Chairman)Mr Rajiv K Luthra–L L Partners (formerly Luthra Luthra Law Offices), IndiaProf Lucy Reed – Centre for International Law, National University of Singapore, Singapore (Vice President)Mr Toby Landau QC – Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Group Practice) and Essex Court Chambers (London), Singapore and UKFor more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg4 June 2019SIAC-Japan Association of Arbitrators Tokyo (JAA) Conference 2019By Stephanie Cameron and Yudai Nagaishi, Ashurst LLPThe theme of the 2019 SIAC-JAA Tokyo Conference was "Perils and Precautions in Complex Disputes: Navigating Multiple Contracts, Multiple Parties and Multiple Proceedings".The conference opened with a welcome address by Ms Lim Seok Hui (CEO, SIAC) who energetically outlined why the 21st century in arbitration will be "the century of Asia". She noted that Japan in particular is an economic powerhouse, and that with Japanese investments and projects across all corners of the globe, there is a need for a dispute resolution process that is not only fast paced, but which also provides quality and efficiency. She suggested that SIAC is well placed to provide this service, given that it is currently the preferred arbitral institution in Asia – and SIAC is committed to continuing to provide arbitral service with a personal touch.Mr Chan Leng Sun SC (Deputy Chairman, SIAC Board of Directors; Senior Counsel and Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers Duxton) delivered an opening address with a reference to a quote inspired by the popular TV show, Game of Thrones: "We can only help people from a position of strength, and a position of strength comes from cooperation". He noted that the Memorandum of Understanding between SIAC and JAA is a step in the direction of achieving such cooperation, and is also a strong commitment to continuing to have conferences and training programs in both Japan and Singapore, in an effort to ensure there is a trusted system available to parties in order to resolve complex disputes. The second opening address was delivered by Mr Yoshimasa Furuta (Managing Director, JAA; Partner, Anderson Mori Tomotsune), who summarised some of the key developments in recent years in relation to international arbitration in Japan. These developments include the launch of the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (JIDRC) in Osaka in May 2018, the establishment of the Japan International Mediation Center (JIMC) in Kyoto, and the commitment to establish another hearing venue in Tokyo by March 2020. He also noted JAA's commitment to continuing to leverage international dispute resolution opportunities in Japan.Members of the audienceLeft to Right: Chong Yee Leong, Ronnie King, Gai Matsushita, Zachary Sharpe and Masako TakahataPanel Session I: Drafting Precautions into the ContractThe first panel of the day addressed the topic "Drafting Precautions into the Contract" and was moderated by Mr Gai Matsushita (Partner, Innoventier LPC). The panellists were Mr Chong Yee Leong (Member, SIAC Board of Directors; Partner, Allen Gledhill LLP), Mr Ronnie King (Managing Partner, Ashurst Horitsu Jimusho Gaikokuho Kyodo Jigyo), Mr Zachary Sharpe (Partner, Jones Day) and Ms Masako Takahata (General Counsel, Eurus Energy Holdings Corporation).This session had a particular focus on transactions giving rise to a risk of parallel proceedings, and how for clients, a big risk is incurring large costs running parallel proceedings that may all be dealing with the same few issues related to one project. The panellists noted that a major benefit of SIAC arbitration is the joinder and consolidation provisions, however they noted that there was some scope for discussion around the meaning of "compatible" in the context of the SIAC rule permitting consolidation. Rule 8.1(c) of the SIAC Rules 2016 provides that one of the grounds under which proceedings may be consolidated is if the arbitration agreements are “compatible,” among other requirements.During discussions, Mr Matsushita raised an interesting question: "What should be done if parties cannot agree on the seat of the arbitration?" This prompted some useful observations from the panellists. Mr Sharpe noted that often the client is actually more concerned about the venue of the hearing, and not the seat, and that therefore the parties could discuss holding the arbitration in a location that is different to the seat of the arbitration. Mr King noted that the parties could leave this issue silent, noting that the 2016 SIAC Rules provide that if the parties have not agreed on the seat then the Tribunal will make a determination. Mr Chong raised a logistical point, that some seats do not allow foreign arbitrators to work – and therefore this is an important factor to consider. Finally, Ms Takahata noted that from an in-house counsel point of view, having a favourable seat is the most important aspect of the arbitration agreement.Left to Right: Chris Bailey, Christopher Chuah, Hiroyuki Tezuka,Kap-You (Kevin) Kim and Elaine WongLeft to Right: Lars Markert, Junya Naito, Chan Leng Sun, SC,Iain Potter, Farhad Sorabjee and Ing Loong YangPanel Session II: Can I Resolve my Dispute in a Single Forum? Procedural Tools and Strategic ConsiderationsPanel Session II was moderated by Mr Hiroyuki Tezuka (Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Executive Director, JAA; Partner, Nishimura Asahi).The panellists were Mr Christopher Chuah (Partner, and Head – Infrastructure, Construction Engineering Practice, WongPartnership LLP), Mr Kap-You (Kevin) Kim (Partner, Bae, Kim Lee LLC) and Ms Elaine Wong (Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills GJBJ).In this session, Mr Chuah first briefly presented on the basic concepts related to parallel proceedings under the SIAC Rules and the approach to "res judicata" from both the English law and civil law perspectives. Mr Kim and Ms Wong then elaborated on issues related to parallel proceedings. Mr Kim focused on joinder and consolidation proceedings and arbitrator appointments, and explained how joinder and consolidation can affect the existing arbitration proceedings depending on the timing of an application for joinder. Ms Wong explained how common procedural tools such as bifurcation, stays, and anti-suit injunctions can be used, with reference to the model law requirement.In the discussion, one of the questions raised was "what happens if a third party requesting to join (a joinder party) proposes to the existing parties that the existing parties consent to the joinder in exchange for the joinder party waiving its right to seek revocation by the Court of arbitrators appointed prior to joinder?" Mr Kim noted that it is actually a common tactics that he uses when he represents a joinder party. Mr Kim added that the existing parties usually tend to accept such a proposal. He stated that before seeking to negotiate such a position, the joinder party should carefully consider the potential impact that such a waiver could have.Panel Session III: Minimizing Perils in Parallel ProceedingsPanel Session III was moderated by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC.The panellists were Mr Lars Markert (Partner, Nishimura Asahi), Mr Junya Naito (Partner, Momo-o, Matsuo Namba), Mr Iain Potter (Director, MDD Forensic Accountants, Singapore), Mr Farhad Sorabjee (Partner, J. Sagar Associates) and Mr Ing Loong Yang (Partner, Latham Watkins LLP).In this session, the panellists focused on discussing parallel proceedings in the context of the same or similar claims being dealt with by different courts or arbitral tribunals, as opposed to the claims being heard in a single forum (which was the focus of Panel Session II).Mr Naito explained how confidentiality under arbitration proceedings is well protected, especially when compared with Japanese court proceedings. He noted that all proceedings and court records in a Japanese court proceeding are in effect open to the public.Mr Yang focused on the problems arising out of res judicata. He explained that res judicata between the same sort of proceedings (court vs court or arbitral tribunal vs arbitral tribunal) can be dealt with consistently, but that there is no consistent approach at the international level to resolve issues of res judicata between a court and a tribunal. This was an interesting observation and made us wonder whether a unified approach should be established at the international level.Mr Markert introduced "guerrilla tactics" in international arbitrations and emphasized that the multi-jurisdictional nature of international arbitration makes it difficult to find a "one size fits all" approach and that possible options should be determined on a case-by-case basis.Mr Sorabjee explained how the risk of parallel proceedings in India could be minimized. He noted that specifically excluding some of the provisions of Indian arbitration law in the arbitration clause would be sensible to avoid multiplicity and delay by the Indian courts.Finally, Mr Potter presented on the key considerations for quantum. He noted that changes in the factual matrix should be carefully considered when dealing with parallel proceedings.4 June 2019SIAC Signs Memoranda of Understanding with the Japan Association of Arbitrators and the Japan International Dispute Resolution CenterThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the Japan Association of Arbitrators (JAA) and the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (JIDRC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.Both MOUs were entered into during a signing ceremony on 4 June 2019 at the SIAC-JAA Tokyo Conference 2019.The MOU between SIAC and JAA was signed by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Akira Kawamura, President of JAA. During the signing ceremony, Ms Lim signed the MOU on behalf of SIAC, and Mr Yoshimasa Furuta, an Executive Director of JAA, affixed the JAA seal to the MOU. The signing ceremony was witnessed by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Deputy Chairman of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Chong Yee Leong, Member of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Nozomu Ohara, Vice President of JAA; and Mr Hiroyuki Tezuka, an Executive Director of JAA.The MOU between SIAC and JIDRC was signed by Ms Lim Seok Hui and Mr Yoshimitsu Aoyama, the Representative Board Member of JIDRC. During the signing ceremony, Ms Lim signed the MOU on behalf of SIAC, and Mr Nozomu Ohara, Board Member of JIDRC, affixed the JIDRC seal to the MOU. The signing ceremony was witnessed by Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC, Deputy Chairman of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Chong Yee Leong, Member of the SIAC Board of Directors; Mr Yoshimasa Furuta, Deputy Secretary General of JIDRC, and Ms Chieko Tsuchiya, Deputy Secretary General of JIDRC.Under the MOUs, SIAC will work with each of JAA and JIDRC to jointly promote international arbitration through co-organising conferences, seminars, workshops and training programmes on international arbitration in Japan and Singapore.Mr Akira Kawamura, President of JAA, said, "We are pleased to deepen our ties with SIAC through this MOU, and firmly believe that this collaboration marks an important milestone in our continued efforts to jointly promote the benefits of international arbitration to the legal and business communities in Japan."Mr Yoshimitsu Aoyama, Representative Board Member of JIDRC, said, “We look forward to working closely with SIAC to make international arbitration the preferred form of dispute resolution for Japanese companies and businesses to resolve their cross-border commercial and investment disputes with enhanced efficiency, expedition and enforceability.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, said, “SIAC is honoured and delighted to be able to contribute to the growth of the international arbitration community in Japan, which is a top foreign user of SIAC. Our partnerships with JAA and JIDRC will provide an excellent platform both to promote the law and practice of international arbitration to Japanese users as well as to nurture and develop the next generation of international arbitration experts in Japan.”For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg27 May 2019SIAC Signs Memorandum of Understanding with the Shanghai International Arbitration CenterThe Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Shanghai International Arbitration Center (SHIAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferred method of dispute resolution for resolving international disputes.The MOU was signed on 24 May 2019 at the inaugural Singapore-Shanghai Comprehensive Cooperation Council meeting, by Ms Lim Seok Hui, Chief Executive Officer of SIAC, and Mr Ma Yi, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of SHIAC. The signing was witnessed by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Deputy Prime Minister and Minster for Finance, Singapore; Mr Ying Yong, Mayor of Shanghai; Mr Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law and Health, Singapore; and Mr Xu Kunlin, Vice Mayor of Shanghai.Under the MOU, SIAC and SHIAC will work together to jointly promote international arbitration to serve the needs of businesses. SIAC and SHIAC will co-organise conferences, seminars and workshops on international arbitration in China and Singapore, and will invite key members of their local arbitration community to attend and participate in major events organised by SIAC in Shanghai or by SHIAC in Singapore.Both institutions will, upon request and where appropriate, provide recommendations of arbitrators to each other, and will, upon request, conduct training programmes for each other’s staff.Mr Ma Yi, Vice Chairman and Secretary-General of SHIAC, said, “Singapore and Shanghai are both leading international financial and legal services hubs. We are confident that this MOU will provide a springboard for both institutions to jointly develop “best-in-class” dispute resolution services in response to the evolving needs of users in China and other Belt Road economies.”Ms Lim Seok Hui, CEO of SIAC, commented, “We are delighted to be entering into this partnership with SHIAC, and look forward to further strengthening our ties with key stakeholders in the Chinese legal and business communities through this collaboration, to make international arbitration the preferred mode of dispute resolution for Chinese parties.” For more information, please contact: Singapore International Arbitration Centre T: +65 6713 9777 E: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. W: www.siac.org.sg The Singapore government has recently released guidelines stating that while telecommuting remains the default mode of working, COVID-19 measures have been eased to facilitate business operations, which will enable more employees to return to the workplace.In compliance with these guidelines, SIAC's physical offices will be open three times a week, from 10am to 4pm on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, to facilitate the delivery, where necessary, of physical copies of documents or facsimiles.In the event of any urgent deliveries on a day that SIAC's physical offices are not open, please call us at +65 6713 9777 and we will arrange for an SIAC staff to be available to take delivery at an appointed time. 09 November 2020 YSIAC Webinar: On Gender Diversity in Arbitral Appointments and ProceedingsWebinar, Singapore 18 November 2020 YSIAC Writing Competition: Winners' Mock HearingWebinar, Singapore 12 November 2020 Delos Dispute Resolution - Prof. Albert Jan van den Berg in Conversation with Neil Kaplan CBE QC SBSWebinar, Singapore 12 November 2020 CIArb Alexander Lecture 2020: The Future of Dispute ResolutionOnline, United Kingdom 16 November 2020 SIArb Lecture Series: Beyond Arbitration: Global Perspectives - "The United Nations at 75; Quo Vaids?"Webinar, Singapore 17 November 2020 Push for Parity: Practical Tools for Emerging ArbitratorsWebinar, United States of America 20 November 2020 Delos Dispute Resolution - Makhdoom Ali Khan in Conversation with Neil Kaplan CBE QC SBSWebinar, Singapore 25 November 2020 CIArb Dispute Appointment Service (DAS) Convention 2020: Handling Disputes in an Era of UncertaintyOnline, United Kingdom The SIAC Arbitration Training Video takes the viewer through the key stages of an international commercial arbitration.For more information click here. SIAC Operating HoursPlease note that although SIAC's offices will be closed from Tuesday,7 April 2020, SIAC will remain fully operational with all staff telecommuting in accordance with the additional measures announced by the Singapore government on 3 April 2020.Please note that the SIAC will be closed on the following Singapore public holiday dates in 2020: New Year's Day Wednesday, 1 January 2020 Chinese New Year* Saturday, 25 January 2020 Sunday, 26 January 2020 Good Friday Friday, 10 April 2020 Labour Day Friday, 1 May 2020 Vesak Day Thursday, 7 May 2020 Hari Raya Puasa* Sunday, 24 May 2020 Hari Raya Haji Friday, 31 July 2020 National Day* Sunday, 9 August 2020 Deepavali Saturday, 14 November 2020 Christmas Friday, 25 December 2020 *The following Monday will be a public holiday. 28 Maxwell Road #03-01Maxwell Chambers SuitesSingapore 069120Email: corpcomms@siac.org.sg

TAGS:Singapore to Welcome SingaporeInternationalArbitrationCentre

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Singapore International Arbitration Centre

Hot Websites