Arbitration Law Monthly

The decision of Butcher J in STA v OFY [2021] EWHC 1574 (Comm) is a helpful application of the principles which govern the grant of extension of time for an appeal against an arbitration award.

In National Oilwell Varco Norway AS v Keppel FELS Ltd [2021] SGHC 124 Vinodh Coomaraswamy J in the Singapore High Court discussed the consequences of an award being made in favour of a company that had ceased to exist before the arbitration had commenced and whose rights had been transferred to another company not identified as a party. The important judgment sets out the principles applicable to enforcement of an award in its terms and also to the consequences of misnomer.

The issue before HHJ Pelling QC in Shapoorji Pallonji & Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Ltd [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm); [2021] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 59 was whether the Commercial Court should under its powers in section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 restrain a demand against a bank under an unconditional performance bond pending the appointment of an emergency arbitrator.

In Betamax Ltd v State Trading Corporation (Mauritius) [2021] UKPC 14 the Privy Council, hearing an appeal from the Supreme Court of Mauritius, had the opportunity to restate the principles applicable to challenges to an award (or applications for its enforcement) where it is alleged that the contract at stake in the dispute was allegedly illegal. The Privy Council confirmed that a finding by the tribunal that the contract is not illegal is not a matter that can be reopened on appeal.

In W v AW [2021] HKCFI 1707 Mimmie Chan J in the Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance was faced with an application to set aside an arbitration award in circumstances where there had been an earlier award between the same parties involving the same issues but coming to the opposite conclusion. The problem was exacerbated by the presence of a common arbitrator who had signed both awards.