Arbitration Law Monthly

Following the temporary halt to our normal print and distribution of Arbitration Law Monthly due to the coronavirus pandemic, Informa Law is pleased to confirm that hard copy publication will begin to be distributed again from 1 January 2021...

Following the temporary halt to our normal print and distribution of Arbitration Law Monthly due to the coronavirus pandemic, Informa Law is pleased to confirm that hard copy publication will begin to be distributed again from 1 January 2021...

In Reliance Industries Ltd v Union of India [2020] EWHC 263 (Comm) Robin Knowles J discussed the jurisdiction of a tribunal over an award remitted by the court following a finding of serious irregularity. The case confirms that jurisdiction depends upon the scope of the remission, and that the tribunal might be entitled to revise its final award if it reaches a different conclusion on the matters remitted.

The English courts have adopted the principle that if the seat of the arbitration is England then an anti-suit injunction to restrain foreign proceedings will readily be granted and that forum non conveniens considerations do not come into play. RiverRock Securities Ltd v International Bank of St Petersburg [2020] EWHC 2483 (Comm), a decision of Foxton J, confirms that the English courts will construe the concept of non-arbitrability narrowly and that the fact that the dispute involves a matter justiciable only in a foreign court does not preclude the grant of an injunction.

The Singapore Court of Appeal in China Machine New Energy Corporation v Jaguar Energy Guatemala LLC and Another [2020] SGCA 12 has upheld the first instance decision of Kannan Ramesh J. The key issue was the use of an “Advocates’ Eyes Only” Order in respect of a series of important documents where there was some ground for a fear that the documents might be used for purposes other than the arbitration. The question was whether the Order was an infringement of the rules of natural justice.