DOCSLIB.ORG

Minlaw) Invited Applications for the Second Round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) Licences on 1 July 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PRESS RELEASE AWARD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF QUALIFYING FOREIGN LAW PRACTICE LICENCES The Ministry of Law (MinLaw) invited applications for the second round of Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) licences on 1 July 2012. Twenty-three applications were received by the closing date of 31 August 2012. 2 QFLP licences will be awarded to the following four firms (listed in alphabetical order): Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Jones Day; Linklaters, and Sidley Austin. 3 The firms will have up to six months from 1 April 2013 to commence their operations as QFLPs, and their licences will be valid for an initial period of five years from the respective start dates. Background 4 The QFLP scheme was introduced in 2008 following the recommendations of the Committee to Develop the Legal Sector chaired by Justice V K Rajah. The Committee, which included senior lawyers from top local firms, assessed that local firms and local lawyers would benefit from the increased foreign presence and competition over time. 5 The QFLP licences allow Foreign Law Practices (FLPs) to practise in permitted areas of Singapore law1. The scheme seeks to support the growth of key economic sectors, grow the legal sector, as well as to offer additional 1 Permitted areas are all areas except domestic areas of litigation and general practice, for example, criminal law, retail conveyancing, family law and administrative law. The QFLPs can practise the permitted areas through Singapore-qualified lawyers with practising certificates or foreign lawyers holding the foreign practitioner certificate. 1 opportunities for our lawyers. A total of six FLPs2 were awarded QFLP licences in the first round in 2008. 6 The nominal value added of the legal services sector has since grown by more than 25 per cent from S$1.5 billion in 2008 to an estimated S$1.9 billion3 in 2012. Singapore is also exporting more legal services. From 2008 to 2011, the value of legal services exported from Singapore increased by 51.8 per cent, from S$363 million in 2008 to S$551 million in 20114. 7 In particular, arbitration activities have grown significantly. Singapore is now recognised as one of the preferred seats of arbitration in the world5. The total number of new cases handled by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has increased from 99 cases in 2008 to 235 cases in 20126. In addition, the total sum of disputes arbitrated in SIAC in 2012 was S$3.61 billion, more than the total sum of disputes in 2010 (S$1.35 billion) and 2011 (S$1.32 billion) combined. 8 Collectively, the liberalisation of the legal sector has generated more opportunities and exposure for Singaporean lawyers. Selection Process 9 Following a favourable review of the performance of the first round of QFLP licensees, FLPs were invited to apply for a second round of licences. The applications were first considered by an Evaluation Committee chaired by Dr Beh Swan Gin, Permanent Secretary (Law)7. A Selection Committee, chaired by Minister for Foreign Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam8, then decided on the 2 The six FLPs awarded QFLP licences in the first round were Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Herbert Smith, Latham & Watkins, Norton Rose and White & Case. 3 The 2012 value added of legal services sector is an estimated figure. 4 In 2010, offshore revenue of the six existing QFLPs is estimated to have grown by about 20 per cent from 2009 to about S$170 million. 5 In White & Case’s 2010 International Arbitration Survey, respondents ranked Singapore as the 3rd most preferred seat of arbitration (tied with Paris and Tokyo) after London (ranked 1st) and Geneva (ranked 2nd). 6 Please refer to the SIAC press release in Annex A. SIAC’s 2012 statistics shows that the total number of new international cases it handled increased from 71 in 2008 to 158 in 2012. 7 The other Evaluation Committee members are Mrs Koh Juat Jong, Solicitor-General; Mr Yeoh Keat Chuan, Managing Director, Economic Development Board; Mr Ng Wai Choong, Deputy Secretary (Policy), Ministry of Finance; Mr Ngiam Shih Chun, Deputy Secretary (Industry), Ministry of Trade and Industry; and Mr Ng Nam Sin, Assistant Managing Director, Monetary Authority of Singapore. 8 The other Selection Committee members are Minister for Education Mr Heng Swee Keat; Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office and Second Minister for Home Affairs and Trade and Industry Mr S Iswaran; Senior Minister of State for Law and Education Ms Indranee Rajah; Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport Mrs Josephine Teo, and the Attorney-General Mr Steven Chong. 2 award of the QFLP licences, taking into account the Evaluation Committee’s recommendations. 10 In determining the award of licences, the Evaluation and Selection Committees took into account, factors such as: a) The value of offshore work that the firm's Singapore office will generate; b) The number of lawyers who will be based in the Singapore office; c) The areas of legal practice that the Singapore office will offer; d) The extent which the Singapore office will function as headquarters for the region, and e) The FLP’s track record. 11 The applications received were of high quality. The four firms that will be awarded the QFLP licences are ranked among the world’s top 20 law firms9. They have extensive global networks and deep expertise in key practice areas10 that will support the growth of the Singapore economy and the development of our legal services. Conclusion 12 The second round of QFLP licences awarded marks Singapore’s continued push to broaden and deepen its legal services market. It will also reinforce Singapore’s position as a premier global and regional legal services hub. MINISTRY OF LAW 19 FEBRUARY 2013 [Please refer to Annex B for the list of interviewees whom the media may wish to contact for comments.] 9 According to American Lawyer Top 100 Firms, 2012: http://www.americanlawyer.com/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202571228982&slreturn=201300100348 37 10 These practice areas include corporate work (M&A, private equity), project finance, banking & finance, capital markets, energy, international arbitration, intellectual property, fund formation and restructuring. 3 ANNEX A Contact: Rachel Foxton Director - Business Development Singapore International Arbitration Centre T : (65) 6221 8833 E : [email protected] W : www.siac.org.sg Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Comes of Age with Record Case Filings Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) published its 2012 annual report today. As it celebrated its 21st year in 2012, the centre handled 235 new cases in 2012, a 25% increase on the previous year and cementing its position as the world’s fastest growing major arbitration centre. Sums in dispute amounted to S$3.61 billion, more than double that handled by the Centre in the previous years. The disputes came from diverse sectors, including telecommunications, infrastructure, financial derivatives, energy and insurance. 2012 also saw larger, more complex disputes being filed. The increase in the quantum of claims and the rise in the number of complex disputes is testament to SIAC’s status as one of the world’s leading arbitration service providers. In 2012, parties from 39 jurisdictions were involved in SIAC cases with mainland Chinese and Indian parties featuring as the most frequent users. For the first time since 2007, parties from mainland China were the number one source of cases filed, with India a very close second. Success in these key Asian markets is a significant achievement for SIAC. The other significant contributors were Indonesia and the USA. These results will be announced at the Thank You reception on 19 Feb 2013 attended by SMS for Law Ms Indranee Rajah and 200 guests from the arbitration and business communities. 2013 heralds another successful year for SIAC. We have started the year with a flurry of new cases filed in the first month and we are well poised to build on our position as a leader in dispute resolution. For the full text of SIAC’s 2012 Annual Report, please refer to: http://www.siac.org.sg/images/stories/documents/SIAC_Annual_Report_2012.pdf 4 ANNEX B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES FOR AWARD OF THE SECOND ROUND OF QFLP LICENCES No. Name Contact details 1 Thio Shen Yi 6216 9466 Joint Managing Director [email protected] TSMP Law Corporation 2 Stefanie Yuen-Thio 6216 9404 Joint Managing Director [email protected] TSMP Law Corporation 3 Arfat Selvam 6311 0031 Managing Director [email protected] Duane Morris & Selvam LLP 4 Cavinder Bull SC 6531 2416 Director, Dispute Resolution [email protected] Drew & Napier LLC 5 Philip Jeyaratnam SC 6885 3605 Managing Partner [email protected] Rodyk & Davidson LLP No. QFLP licence awardees Contact details (Media can request to speak to Singaporean lawyers in the firms) 6 Sushma Jobanputra 6233 5989 Partner-in-Charge [email protected] Jones Day 7 Kevin Wong Heng Ning 6890 7333 Managing Partner [email protected] Linklaters 8 Matthew Sheridan 6230 3928 Member of Executive Committee [email protected] Sidley Austin 9 Jai S Pathak 9507 3683 Partner-in-Charge [email protected] Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher 5 .
Recommended publications
  • Annual Report 2010 - 2011 Contents

    Annual Report 2010 - 2011 Contents

    Annual Report 2010 - 2011 Contents 2 Foreword by the Attorney-General 6 Remembrance and Congratulations 10 Our Mission, Vision and Core Values 13 Our Roles 15 Our Corporate Structure A. AGC’s Management Team B. Six Legal Divisions and Two Non-Legal Divisions 29 Our Key Milestones A. As The Government’s Chief Legal Adviser and Counsel i. AGC’s Advisory Work ii. AGC’s Involvement in Litigation iii. AGC in Negotiations iv. AGC as Legislative Draftsman B. As Public Prosecutor C. In Performing Other Assigned Duties of a Legal Character D. Our Corporate Resources 61 Our Training, Development and Outreach 67 The Ties that Bind Us 71 Key Figures for 2010-2011 A. Corporate Awards B. Performance Indicators C. Financial Indicators for FY2010-FY2011 Attorney-General’s Chambers ANNUAL REPORT 2010 - 2011 1 FOREWORD BY THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL As we look back on these past years, the taxation policies and policies concerning adjust to these changes so that we can function perceptible increase in the complexity of our casino regulation. Cross-Divisional teams effectively. work is particularly striking. This growing were also engaged to deal with cases before complexity has in turn given rise to two the Singapore Courts when we were required With this in mind, I have intensified the consequences, which I elaborate on below. to address constitutional challenges and also commitment of my Chambers to the training, to defend Singapore’s judiciary in the face of development and specialisation of our officers contempt. so that we are well placed to support the THE NEED FOR Government with the highest level of legal iNTER-dIVISIONAL This is perhaps a reality that is ultimately to be services.
  • 7. Civil Procedure

    7. Civil Procedure

    (2008) 9 SAL Ann Rev Civil Procedure 143 7. CIVIL PROCEDURE Cavinder BULL SC MA (Oxford), LLM (Harvard); Barrister (Gray’s Inn), Attorney-at-Law (New York State); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). Jeffrey PINSLER SC LLB (Liverpool), LLM (Cambridge), LLD (Liverpool); Barrister (Middle Temple), Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Appeals Leave to appeal 7.1 In Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529, the Court of Appeal held that where the High Court has refused leave to appeal against a decision of the District Court, there can be no further recourse after the High Court has adjudicated on the matter. This case was an extension of the Court of Appeal’s previous judgment in SBS Transit Ltd v Koh Swee Ann [2004] 3 SLR 365, which concerned an application for leave to appeal against the decision of a Magistrate’s Court. 7.2 Andrew Phang JA reiterated the fundamental principle that where a legal decision cannot be appealed against as of right but requires express permission from a named authority before it can be appealed against, the decision of that authority as to whether or not to grant leave to appeal is final (Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King [2008] 2 SLR 529 at [14]). It is clear from s 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) that the High Court is the authority with the final say as to whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal against a decision of the Subordinate Courts.
  • Visit on Dispute Resolution Services in Singapore 1

    Visit on Dispute Resolution Services in Singapore 1

    VISIT ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION SERVICES IN SINGAPORE The Secretary for Justice, Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC, visited Singapore from The Secretary for April 2 to 3 to promote Hong Kong as a legal services hub and a dispute 1 Justice, Mr Rimsky resolution centre in the Asia Pacific Region, and to enhance ties with Yuen, SC (left), Singapore’s legal sector. meets Singapore’s Senior Minister Mr Yuen met the Senior Minister of State of the Ministry of Law, Ms of State of the Indranee Rajah and the Attorney-General, Mr Steven Chong Horng Ministry of Law, Siong, SC, to discuss matters of mutual interest including the direction 1 Ms Indranee Rajah. of legal policy in both jurisdictions. Mr Yuen (left) He later visited the Maxwell Chambers, which provides alternative dispute 2 meets Singapore’s resolution (ADR) facilities and services in Singapore. Mr Yuen met Mr Attorney-General, Philip Jeyaretnam and Mr Ban Jiun Ean, respectively the Chairman and Mr Steven Chong Chief Executive of the Maxwell Chambers. He also met Mr Minn Naing Horng Siong, SC Oo, the Chief Executive Officer of the Singapore International Arbitration (right). Centre. Mr Yuen exchanged views with them on the latest development of ADR in the international context, and highlighted the Department of Justice’s objective to enhance Hong Kong’s status as a regional hub for legal and ADR services. 2 Mr Yuen also took the opportunity to meet the Dean of the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore, Professor Simon Chesterman; and the Dean of the School of Law, Singapore Management University, Professor Yeo Tiong Min.
  • This Story Was Printed from Todayonline

    This Story Was Printed from Todayonline

    This story was printed from TODAYonline S'pore gets first female Solicitor-General Koh Juat Jong takes over from Walter Woon, who is new AG Thursday • April 10, 2008 Leong Wee Keat [email protected] A PRESIDENT'S Scholar has become the first woman to be appointed the Solicitor-General (SG) in the Attorney-General's Chambers here. Ms Koh Juat Jong (picture), 48, will leave her role as the Registrar of the Supreme Court,and assume her new post tomorrow. As SG, she will work closely with the new Attorney-General (AG), Professor Walter Woon, 52, in advising ministries and departments on questions of law. Prof Woon, the current SG, has been appointed to the post of AG for two years, said a statement from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) yesterday. Mr Chao Hick Tin, 65, the current AG, ends his two-year term today. He returns to the judiciary as a Judge of Appeal at the Supreme Court tomorrow, said the PMO statement. As SG, Ms Koh will also help the AG oversee the drafting of legislation, and represent the Government in legal proceedings. "I am honoured to be entrusted with the responsibilities of the new appointment as Solicitor-General," she said. "My last four years as the Registrar of the Supreme Court has been a rewarding and memorable experience." Ms Koh joined the Legal Service in 1989 when she was posted to the AG's Chambers as state counsel. She was then posted to the Supreme Court in 1994 as senior assistant registrar before becoming a district judge in 1995, and later the Principal District Judge in the Family and Juvenile Justice Division.
  • Steep Rise Ltd V Attorney-General

    Steep Rise Ltd V Attorney-General

    Steep Rise Ltd v Attorney-General [2020] SGCA 20 Case Number : Civil Appeal No 30 of 2019 Decision Date : 24 March 2020 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Tay Yong Kwang JA; Steven Chong JA; Woo Bih Li J Counsel Name(s) : Chan Tai-Hui, Jason SC, Tan Kai Liang, Daniel Seow Wei Jin, Victor Leong Hoi Seng and Lim Min Li Amanda (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the appellant; Kristy Tan, Kenneth Wong, Ng Kexian and Tan Ee Kuan (Attorney-General's Chambers) for the respondent. Parties : Steep Rise Limited — Attorney-General Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Duty of full and frank disclosure Criminal Procedure and Sentencing – Mutual legal assistance – Enforcement of foreign confiscation order – Risk of dissipation 24 March 2020 Tay Yong Kwang JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction 1 On 22 August 2017, a Restraint Order was made by the High Court on the application of the Attorney-General (“the AG”) pursuant to s 29 read with para 7(1) of the Third Schedule of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (Cap 190A, 2001 Rev Ed) (“MACMA”), restraining any dealing with the funds in the bank account of Steep Rise Limited (“the appellant”) in the Bank of Singapore (“the BOS Account”). Subsequently, the appellant applied to the High Court to discharge the order of court. The High Court Judge (“the Judge”) dismissed the application and made no order as to costs as the AG did not seek an order for costs. 2 The appellant then appealed against the Judge’s decision.
  • Grounds of Decision

    Grounds of Decision

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGHC 208 Originating Summons No 980 of 2018 Between Republic of India … Plaintiff And Vedanta Resources plc … Defendant GROUNDS OF DECISION [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Documents] [Arbitration] — [Confidentiality] — [Evidence used in other proceedings] [Arbitration] — [Interlocutory order or direction] — [Court’s power] [Arbitration] — [Arbitral tribunal] — [Competence] [Arbitration] — [Conduct of arbitration] — [Preliminary issues] [Arbitration] — [Declaratory relief] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................4 THE CAIRN GROUP RESTRUCTURING...............................................................4 INDIA ISSUES ASSESSMENT ORDERS.................................................................4 COMMENCEMENT OF THE ARBITRATIONS ........................................................5 THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS ISSUE PROCEDURAL ORDERS ................................6 Cairn Arbitration Procedural Order No. 10..............................................7 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 3............................................9 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 6..........................................10 Vedanta Arbitration Procedural Order No. 7..........................................11 THE PRELIMINARY QUESTION .............................................................12
  • Tan Hwee Lee V Tan Cheng Guan and Another Appeal and Another

    Tan Hwee Lee V Tan Cheng Guan and Another Appeal and Another

    Tan Hwee Lee v Tan Cheng Guan and another appeal and another matter [2012] SGCA 50 Case Number : Civil Appeals Nos 135 and 136 of 2011, and Summons No 266 of 2012 Decision Date : 30 August 2012 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Lim Puay Chong Vincent and Sim Chong (JLC Advisors LLP) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 135 of 2011 and the respondent in Civil Appeal No 136 of 2011; Bernice Loo and Magdelene Sim (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the respondent in Civil Appeal No 135 of 2011 and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 136 of 2011. Parties : Tan Hwee Lee — Tan Cheng Guan Family Law – Division of Matrimonial Assets Family Law – Maintenance [LawNet Editorial Note: The decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2011] 4 SLR 1148.] 30 August 2012 Judgment reserved. Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 These are two related appeals filed by the husband, Tan Cheng Guan (“the Husband”) and the wife, Tan Hwee Lee (“the Wife”) against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Tan Cheng Guan v Tan Hwee Lee [2011] 4 SLR 1148 (“the Judgment”) with regard to the division of matrimonial assets and the order of maintenance. Civil Appeal No 135 of 2011 (“CA 135/2011”) is filed by the Wife, and Civil Appeal No 136 of 2011 (“CA 136/2011”) is filed by the Husband. Summons No 266 of 2012 (“SUM 266/2012”) is an application taken out by the Wife in relation to CA 135/2011.
  • 1 International Justice Forum 2019 MANAGING

    1 International Justice Forum 2019 MANAGING

    International Justice Forum 2019 MANAGING QUALITY OF JUSTICE: GLOBAL TRENDS AND BEST PRACTICES Justice Steven Chong I. Introduction 1. In the global discourse on justice and quality of justice, much has been said about the substantive aspects of the law and justice – the importance of developing sound legal principles, a consistent body of jurisprudence, and adherence to the rule of law ideal. Somewhat less has been said of the procedural aspects – the legal rules of procedure which balance due process and the efficient running of the system. But almost nothing is said of what, in my view, is a matter oft-overlooked, and yet of critical importance – court administration and management. 2. The judiciary is, of course, an organ of state, but it is also, elementally, an organisation. Like any organisation, the courts face issues of administration and management – budgeting, human resources, public communications – and failings in these respects are just as much a threat to the administration of justice as are failings in the quality of its decisions. The key to success lies not just in elocution, but in execution; and failure lurks not just in the spectacular, but in the mundane as well. 3. This pragmatic thinking is almost hardwired into the Singaporean consciousness. Our founding Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, himself a former lawyer, put it this way: “The acid test of any legal system is not the Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Singapore. I wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance of my law clerk, Mr Reuben Ong, in the research of this paper. 1 greatness or grandeur of its ideal concepts, but whether in fact it is able to produce order and justice in the relationships between man and man and between man and the State.”1 Being an island-nation with no natural resources and a tiny population entirely dependent on entrepot trade and foreign investment, the development of a robust, respected and sophisticated legal system which commands the confidence of foreign traders and investors is nothing less than a matter of survival for us.
  • [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant and (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents in the Matter of Or

    [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant and (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents in the Matter of Or

    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 108 Civil Appeal No 34 of 2019 Between (1) BRS … Appellant And (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Respondents In the matter of Originating Summons No 770 of 2018 Between (1) BRS … Plaintiff And (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Defendants Civil Appeal No 35 of 2019 Between (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Appellants And (1) BRS … Respondent In the matter of Originating Summons No 512 of 2018 Between (1) BRQ (2) BRR … Plaintiffs And (1) BRS (2) BRT … Defendants JUDGMENT [Arbitration] — [Award] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Whether three-month time limit extended by request for correction] [Arbitration] — [Award] — [Recourse against award] — [Setting aside] — [Breach of natural justice] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND FACTS ................................................................................2 THE PARTIES ...................................................................................................3 THE SPA.........................................................................................................3 THE BULK POWER TRANSMISSION AGREEMENT .............................................6 DELAYS IN THE PROJECT AND COST OVERRUN ...............................................6 THE ARBITRATION...........................................................................................7 Relief sought...............................................................................................8
  • Financial Statements

    Financial Statements

    GARDENS BY THE BAY ANNUAL REPORT 2018/19 CONTENTS 5 Corporate Overview 19 Enchanting Moments 31 Wondrous Memories 41 Delightful Discoveries 53 Illuminating Communities 65 Narrating Wonder 75 Dazzling Talents 81 Corporate Governance 91 Financial Statements Image credit: @dotzsoh CORPORATE OVERVIEW VISION Our world of gardens for all to own, enjoy and cherish MISSION We make our Gardens the leisure destination of choice for all We delight our guests with an enthralling experience, excellent service and enriching programmes We inspire pride of ownership of our Gardens in every Singaporean We aim to be a model of sustainable development and conservation 4 GARDENS BY THE BAY | ANNUAL REPORT 2018/19 CORPORATE OVERVIEW 5 CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE When the idea of Gardens by the Bay was first Gardens by the Bay also deeply appreciates the mooted, the intent was for this to be a garden for the strong support our corporate partners and people – a world-class horticultural wonder serving volunteers have generously given to our cause, the leisure needs of Singaporeans, and a familiar and will continue to engage with them actively to Singapore icon that our people will be proud of. realise our vision as a People’s Garden. We will press Hence, it is uplifting to see the steady progress made on to forge closer partnerships with community in the Gardens over the years, especially with our groups so that more residents can enjoy this special public programmes and attraction offerings. green space, foster community bonding and create shared memories as they participate in the various The 2018 financial year (FY) was another outstanding programmes and events held at the Gardens.
  • Confused Seas: Identifying the Proper Law of Arbitration Agreements in Maritime Contracts – England, Singapore and Australia

    Confused Seas: Identifying the Proper Law of Arbitration Agreements in Maritime Contracts – England, Singapore and Australia

    CONFUSED SEAS: IDENTIFYING THE PROPER LAW OF ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS IN MARITIME CONTRACTS – ENGLAND, SINGAPORE AND AUSTRALIA Alan JS de Rochefort-Reynolds* The proper law of an arbitration agreement is crucial for the enforcement of arbitration clauses and arbitral awards but maritime contracts rarely make explicit their arbitration agreement’s proper law. Complicating matters, several approaches have emerged for identifying the proper law. England and Singapore utilise similar frameworks, each of which broadly aligns with Australian conflict of laws rules. However, the tests’ application diverges between, and within, England and Singapore. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen whether Singapore will follow recent changes to the English approach. As a result, the operation of arbitration agreements found in the leading maritime contracts examined in this article is uncertain. To ensure that arbitration agreements operate as intended, users of maritime contracts should specify the proper law of the arbitration agreement in each arbitration clause. 1 Introduction International commercial arbitration is the preferred method for resolving maritime disputes.1 Most charterparties and maritime contracts provide for arbitration2 and in 2019 over 1600 arbitrations were initiated under the London Maritime Arbitrators Association Terms (‘LMAA Terms’) alone.3 One of the appeals of international arbitration is that a network of international conventions and domestic legislation supports arbitral proceedings and the enforcement of awards.4 At the heart of this system—and every arbitration—is the arbitration agreement. An arbitration agreement records the parties’ consent to submit a dispute to arbitration and, generally, their desire that the arbitration be seated in a certain jurisdiction and conducted under specific arbitral rules.
  • Smubrochure.Pdf

    Smubrochure.Pdf

    SMU LAW SCHOOL The Singapore Government, in a major review of the domestic supply of lawyers, confirmed a shortage of lawyers in Singapore. 2007 hence marked a major milestone in the development of legal education in Singapore – the setting up of the nation’s second law school. SMU is honoured to be entrusted with this important responsibility. As Singapore’s first private university and the only university here with a city campus purpose-built to its pedagogy of small class size and interactive learning, SMU will be extending its unique approach to its School of Law. SMU’s undergraduate law programme aims to mould students into excellent lawyers who will contribute significantly to society. The objective is to produce law graduates who have contextualised legal expertise and the ability to think across disciplines and geographical borders. In terms of pedagogy, SMU’s seminar-style learning will be put to good effect to nurture students who are confident, articulate and analytically agile. CONTENTS 03 Dean’s Message 04 Investing In The Fundamentals // Rigorous and Challenging Curriculum // Holistic Pedagogy & Course Assessment // Optional Second Major // Wide Range of Double Degree Options // Beneficial Internship & Community Service // Internship Partners 09 Commitment To Excellence // Scholarships & Awards // National & International Competitions // International Exchange 12 Career Prospects // Raising The Bar 13 Visionary Campus // City Campus // Facilities 15 Strengthening Our Relevance // Centre for Dispute Resolution // International Islamic Law and Finance Centre // Pro Bono Centre // Asian Peace-building and Rule of Law Programme 18 Heeding The Best // Advisory Board Members 19 Top Notch Faculty // Deanery // Faculty 24 The Fun Stuff // Beyond The Classroom Dean’s Message The School of Law was started in 2007 after a major review of legal education in Singapore concluded that it was timely to have a second law school in Singapore.