DOCSLIB.ORG

SIAC Congress 2018 E-Flyer V24

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SIAC Congress 2018 E-Flyer V24 SINGAPORE • Multiplicity – Managing Parallel Proceedings 15 MAY Under Multiple Instruments SIAC-CIL CHARTING THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 15 MAY Academic-Practitioner Colloquium CONGRESS 16 MAY 4th Annual GAR Live Singapore 16 MAY SIAC-CIArb Debate 2018 17 MAY SIAC Congress & Gala Dinner 2018 THURSDAY, 17 MAY 2018 | ST. REGIS, SINGAPORE SIAC-YSIAC Workshop: 18 MAY IBA Arb40 Toolkit for Award Writing “Twilight Issues” in International 18 MAY REGISTER NOW Arbitration SIAC Congress Programme Highlights The Future of International Arbitration is now. As a premier, global arbitral institution, at the forefront of cutting edge developments in the law and practice of international arbitration, SIAC has embraced its role as a key stakeholder in international arbitration. The SIAC Congress 2018 brings together the judiciary, distinguished members of the SIAC Board and SIAC Court of Arbitration, and other eminent members of the international arbitration community, to discuss future directions for international arbitration. In the course of the conference, we will discuss SIACʼs innovative cross-institution consolidation protocol, critically examine SIACʼs track record in delivering on its mission to ensure that the awards rendered (To be confirmed) by tribunals are valid and enforceable, and engage in a robust debate on whether arbitral institutions are best placed to chart the future of international arbitration. SIAC Congress 2018 Gala Dinner Guests of Honour: Keynote Speech by: Opening Address by: Opening Address by: The Honourable the Mr Heng Swee Keat Ms Indranee Rajah, SC Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Minister for Finance, Singapore Senior Minister of State, Supreme Court of Singapore Ministry of Law and Ministry of Finance, Singapore Speakers include: • Mr Davinder Singh, SC • Prof Lawrence Boo • Mr Alastair Henderson Chairman of SIAC; Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Managing Partner (Southeast Asia), Executive Chairman, Drew & Napier LLC Independent Arbitrator, The Arbitration Herbert Smith Freehills LLP Chambers • Prof Lucy Reed • Mr Cao Lijun • Mr Jern-Fei Ng QC Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Member, SIAC Court of Member, YSIAC Committee; Director, Centre for International Law Arbitration; Partner, Barrister, Essex Court Chambers (Singapore); Professor, Faculty of Law, Zhong Lun Law Firm National University of Singapore • Prof Bernard Hanotiau • Mr Chan Leng Sun, SC • Mr Prakash Pillai Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Deputy Chairman, SIAC Board of Partner, Clyde & Co Clasis Partner, Hanotiau & van den Berg Directors; Principal, Global Head Singapore Arbitration, Baker McKenzie Wong & Leow • Dr Michael Hwang, SC • Mr Darius J. Khambata, SC • Mr Nish Shetty Chartered Arbitrator, Michael Hwang Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration Head of Litigation & Dispute Chambers LLC Resolution (Asia-Pacific), Clifford Chance • Mr Toby Landau QC • Mr Alan Thambiayah • Mr Yu-Jin Tay Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Member, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Partner, Mayer Brown JSM Barrister and Arbitrator, Professional Arbitrator, Essex Court Chambers The Arbitration Chambers • Dr Michael Pryles AO PBM • Mr Christopher Chuah • Mr Andre Yeap, SC Founder President & Member, SIAC Court of Partner, Head of Infrastructure, Senior Partner, Head of International Arbitration; Independent Arbitrator Construction & Engineering Arbitration Practice, Practice, WongPartnership LLP Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP • Mr Chelva Rajah, SC • Mr Wade M. Coriell Member, SIAC Board of Directors; Partner, Deputy Head of Managing Partner, Tan Rajah & International Arbitration Practice, Cheah King & Spalding • Mr Cavinder Bull, SC Vice-President, SIAC Court of Arbitration; Chief Executive Officer, Drew & Napier LLC PLATINUM SPONSOR SILVER SPONSORS BRONZE SPONSORS PRE-GALA DINNER COCKTAIL & AFTER PARTY SPONSOR GALA DINNER SPONSOR OTHER PREMIUM SPONSORS SUPPORTING ORGANISATIONS MEDIA PARTNER www.siaccongress2018.org.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (Dawn Tan 11 Mar 10) Final
    About Dawn Dawn graduated with First Class Honours from the National University of Singapore Law School in 1997. In 2002 she took a Master of Laws degree from the Harvard Law School where she again achieved academic distinction. Dawn completed her pupilage under Mr Michael Hwang, S.C. at Allen & Gledhill (now Allen & Gledhill LLP) and was admitted as an Advocate and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Singapore in May 1998. Dawn is also admitted as a Solicitor in England and Dawn Tan Ly-Ru Wales and an Attorney and Counselor-at-Law of the State of New York. Between 1998 and 1999, Dawn was a Justices’ Law Clerk in the Chambers of the former Chief Justice, Mr Yong Pung How. She then served as an Assistant Registrar at the Supreme Court Contact Details Registry and concurrently took up teaching appointments at the National University of Singapore Law School and the then T: 656.225.3819 Department of Law of the Singapore Management University. F: 656.224.1891 Between 2004 and 2006, Dawn was Deputy Director Trade at the Ministry of Trade and Industry where she was involved in the E: [email protected] formulation and implementation of Singapore’s foreign trade policy. She negotiated the Trade in Goods, Rules of Origin and Qualifications Trade Remedies Chapters of Singapore’s Free Trade Agreements with India, Panama, Chile, New Zealand and Brunei (known as LL.B. (Hons), National University of the “Pacific 4”), Kuwait and Pakistan. She also advised on the Singapore (1997) legality of actions taken by other countries, such as anti-dumping LL.M., Harvard Law School (2002) measures, against Singapore companies.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM
    Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Oral Advocacy Opportunities: Concerns and Implications
    Published on 6 September 2018 THE DECLINE OF ORAL ADVOCACY OPPORTUNITIES: CONCERNS AND IMPLICATIONS [2018] SAL Prac 1 Singapore has produced a steady stream of illustrious and highly accomplished advocates over the decades. Without a doubt, these advocates have lifted and contributed to the prominence and reputation of the profession’s ability to deliver dispute resolution services of the highest quality. However, the conditions in which these advocates acquired, practised and honed their advocacy craft are very different from those present today. One trend stands out, in particular: the decline of oral advocacy opportunities across the profession as a whole. This is no trifling matter. The profession has a moral duty, if not a commercial imperative, to apply itself to addressing this phenomenon. Nicholas POON* LLB (Singapore Management University); Director, Breakpoint LLC; Advocate and Solicitor, Supreme Court of Singapore. I. Introduction 1 Effective oral advocacy is the bedrock of dispute resolution.1 It is also indisputable that effective oral advocacy is the product of training and experience. An effective advocate is forged in the charged atmosphere of courtrooms and arbitration chambers. An effective oral advocate does not become one by dint of age. 2 There is a common perception that sustained opportunities for oral advocacy in Singapore, especially for junior lawyers, are on the decline. This commentary suggests * This commentary reflects the author’s personal opinion. The author would like to thank the editors of the SAL Practitioner, as well as Thio Shen Yi SC and Paul Tan for reading through earlier drafts and offering their thoughtful insights. 1 Throughout this piece, any reference to “litigation” is a reference to contentious dispute resolution practice, including but not limited to court and arbitration proceedings, unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Lee Kuan Yew V Chee Soon Juan (No 2)
    Lee Kuan Yew v Chee Soon Juan (No 2) [2005] SGHC 2 Case Number : Suit 1459/2001 Decision Date : 06 January 2005 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : Kan Ting Chiu J Counsel Name(s) : Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar, Nicolas Tang (Drew and Napier LLC) for the plaintiff; The defendant in person Parties : Lee Kuan Yew — Chee Soon Juan Tort – Defamation – Damages – Assessment of damages – Defendant alleging plaintiff mishandling nation's funds – Principles of assessment – Quantification of damages Civil Procedure – Reconvening hearing – Defendant not attending assessment of damages hearing – Defendant applying to reconvene such hearing – Defendant applying to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel in application to reconvene hearing – Factors to consider when deciding whether to grant defendant's applications to reconvene hearing and to cross-examine plaintiff and plaintiff's counsel at such reconvened hearing 6 January 2005 Judgment reserved. Kan Ting Chiu J: 1 This matter came before me for damages to be assessed following a finding that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff. 2 The plaintiff, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, was the Senior Minister of Singapore before he assumed the office of Minister Mentor on 12 August 2004. The defendant, Dr Chee Soon Juan, was and is the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. 3 This action arose out of words the defendant said in the course of campaigning in the 2001 Parliamentary General Elections. The subject words 4 On 28 October 2001, the defendant spoke at an election rally at Nee Soon Central. He told his audience: Yesterday, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was at his best.
    [Show full text]
  • Valedictory Reference in Honour of Justice Chao Hick Tin 27 September 2017 Address by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
    VALEDICTORY REFERENCE IN HONOUR OF JUSTICE CHAO HICK TIN 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister Shanmugam, Prof Jayakumar, Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Mr Hoong, Ladies and Gentlemen, 1. Welcome to this Valedictory Reference for Justice Chao Hick Tin. The Reference is a formal sitting of the full bench of the Supreme Court to mark an event of special significance. In Singapore, it is customarily done to welcome a new Chief Justice. For many years we have not observed the tradition of having a Reference to salute a colleague leaving the Bench. Indeed, the last such Reference I can recall was the one for Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, which happened on this very day, the 27th day of September, exactly 27 years ago. In that sense, this is an unusual event and hence I thought I would begin the proceedings by saying something about why we thought it would be appropriate to convene a Reference on this occasion. The answer begins with the unique character of the man we have gathered to honour. 1 2. Much can and will be said about this in the course of the next hour or so, but I would like to narrate a story that took place a little over a year ago. It was on the occasion of the annual dinner between members of the Judiciary and the Forum of Senior Counsel. Mr Chelva Rajah SC was seated next to me and we were discussing the recently established Judicial College and its aspiration to provide, among other things, induction and continuing training for Judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin V Lee Kuan Yew [2001]
    Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew [2001] SGCA 55 Case Number : CA 600023/2001 Decision Date : 22 August 2001 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA; L P Thean JA Counsel Name(s) : Appellant in person; Davinder Singh SC and Hri Kumar (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent Parties : Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin — Lee Kuan Yew Civil Procedure – Striking out – Dismissal of action for want of prosecution – Principles applicable – Inordinate and inexcusable delay – Respondent's delay of over two years without reason or explanation – Whether delay amounts to intentional and contumelious default – Prejudice by reason of delay – Whether unavailability of services of particular Queen's Counsel amounts to prejudice – Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay amounts to abuse of court process – Limitation period yet to expire – Whether action should be struck out Statutory Interpretation – Statutes – Repealing – Repeal of Rules of Court O 3 r 5 – Effect of repeal – Distinction between substantive and procedural rights – Whether amendments to procedural rules affect rights of parties retrospectively – Whether rights under repealed order survive – s 16(1)(c) Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 1999 Ed) Words and Phrases – 'Contumelious conduct' (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction This appeal arose from an application by Mr Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam, the appellant (`the appellant`), to strike out the action in Suit 224/97 initiated by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the respondent (`the respondent`). The application was heard before the senior assistant registrar and was dismissed. The appellant appealed to a judge-in-chambers, and the appeal was heard before Lai Siu Chiu J. The judge dismissed it and against her decision the appellant now brings this appeal.
    [Show full text]
  • Arbitration and Mediation – Two Mutually Exclusive Worlds? Intellioffices, Level 3, 146 Robinson Road, Singapore 068909 Thursday, 11 August 2016, 5Pm – 7.15Pm
    EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT: Supporting Partner: Register and Pay by 22 July 2016 Public CPD Points: 1.5 Arbitration and Mediation – Two Mutually Exclusive Worlds? Intellioffices, Level 3, 146 Robinson Road, Singapore 068909 Thursday, 11 August 2016, 5pm – 7.15pm About this Seminar: Historically, save in certain countries (notably Germany, parts of Switzerland and China), arbitration and mediation have been considered to be mutually exclusive, particularly when the discussion is about an arbitrator turning mediator and vice-versa. But given the success of mediation in Singapore as a mean of Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) and the close relationship between the Singapore International Mediation Centre (“SIMC”) and Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), it is time to reassess the arbitration community’s attitude towards actively guiding (and perhaps encouraging) arbitration parties to consider referring the dispute to mediation notwithstanding that arbitration procedures have commenced. Practitioners should recall Sections 16 and 17 of the International Arbitration Act (“IAA”) which expressly contemplate a Tribunal converting itself into a mediator (with the consent of the parties) and thereafter reverting to its position as arbitrator if the mediation proves unsuccessful. In order to stimulate discussion between the arbitration community and the mediation community, Singapore Institute of Arbitrators (“SIArb”) [in conjunction with SIMC] is presenting a seminar on how there might be cross-pollination between the two forms of ADR. To this end, two outstanding speakers who have significant experience of both arbitration and mediation will be discussing this topic: • Professor Lawrence Boo • George Lim SC In addition, commentary will be provided by two guest speakers: • Mr Hee Teng Fong, who will share his experience of how Arb-Med-Arb is practised in China.
    [Show full text]
  • Who's Who Legal: Thought Leaders
    Who’s Who Legal: Thought Leaders - Global Elite 2020 Arbitration .................................................................................................................................... 4 Asset Recovery ............................................................................................................................ 5 Aviation - Contentious ................................................................................................................. 7 Aviation - Finance ........................................................................................................................ 7 Aviation - Regulatory ................................................................................................................... 8 Banking - Finance ........................................................................................................................ 9 Banking - Fintech ....................................................................................................................... 10 Banking - Regulatory ................................................................................................................. 10 Business Crime Defence - Corporates ...................................................................................... 11 Business Crime Defence - Individuals ....................................................................................... 12 Capital Markets - Debt and Equity ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lawlink 2019 Contents Contents
    law link FROM ACADEMIA TO POLITICS AND BACK PROFESSOR S JAYAKUMAR ‘63 CHARTING THE NEXT CHAPTER JUSTICE ANDREW PHANG ‘82 ON LANGUAGE, LAW AND CODING STEPHANIE LAW ‘14 AN EMINENT CAREER EMERITUS PROFESSOR M. SORNARAJAH AI & THE LAW ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DANIEL SENG ‘92 THE ALUMNI MAGAZINE OF THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE FACULTY OF LAW LAWLINK 2019 CONTENTS CONTENTS 02 04 10 16 22 28 Dean’s Diary Alumni Spotlight Student Features Reunions Benefactors Law School Message from the Dean Professor S Jayakumar ’63: Highlights Congratulations Class of 2019 16 Class of 1989 22 From Academia to Politics and Back 03 Michael Hwang SC Class of 1999 24 An Eminent Career 10 30 Justice Andrew Phang ’82: Emeritus Professor M. Sornarajah Delivers SLR Annual Lecture 17 Charting The Next Chapter 05 Class of 2009 25 NUS Giving The Appeal of the Moot 18 AI & the Law 11 Stephanie Law ’14: LLM Class of 2009 26 Chandran Mohan K Nair ‘76 Associate Professor Daniel Seng ’92 & Susan de Silva ‘83: On Language, Law and Coding 08 Rag & Flag 2019 20 12 Scholarship to expand Kuala Lumpur & New York 27 Key Lectures minsets about success Law Alumni Mentor Programme Law IV: Unjust Enrichment 21 14 2019 09 Book Launches Alumni Relations & Development NUS Law Eu Tong Sen Building 469G Bukit Timah Road Singapore 259776 Tel: (65) 6516 3616 Fax: (65) 6779 0979 Email: [email protected] www.nuslawlink.com www.law.nus.edu.sg/alumni Please update your particulars at: www.law.nus.edu.sg/ alumni_update_particulars.asp 1 LAWLINK 2019 ALUMNI SPOTLIGHT DEAN’S DIARY FROM ACADEMIA TO POLITICS PROFESSOR SIMON CHESTERMAN AND BACK History often makes more sense in retrospect (TRAIL).
    [Show full text]
  • Bcl and Mjur Class of 2019/20
    FACULTY OF Profiles L AW BCL AND MJUR CLASS OF 2019/20 www.law.ox.ac.uk CLASS OF 2019/20 BCL AND MJUR 1 BCL AND MJUR PROFILE CLASS OF 2019/20 INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE PROGRAMME Oxford is renowned The Oxford Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL) degree has been a for the size, strength, pivotal feature of Oxford’s law provision since the sixteenth and diversity of its century. This rich history has helped to maintain its status as community of legal the most highly regarded taught masters-level qualification scholars drawn from in the common law world. Since 1991, the Magister around the world. Juris (MJur) degree has established a similar outstanding I am delighted to reputation for students from non-common law backgrounds. welcome our new class of BCL and MJur Our students benefit from Oxford’s rigorous tutorial system students to this community. which makes these degree courses so challenging. This The students also come from a diverse range environment demands exceptional academic motivation, of backgrounds; they are united by their focused analytical ability, and the capacity for sustained previous academic achievements and shared work. Students from a wide range of jurisdictions and enthusiasm for the study of law. backgrounds refine their wealth of experience, knowledge and understanding through direct and intensive engagement Christopher Hare with some of the best teachers and researchers in the world Associate Dean of Graduate Studies across a wide range of legal subjects. (Taught Courses) Oxford’s Faculty of Law was ranked second in the world in 2016 QS World University Rankings for law, and second in the Guardian’s UK University Guide 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael Hwang S.C Senior Counsel and Arbitrator at Michael Hwang Chambers Singapore and Essex Court Chambers London
    Michael Hwang S.C Senior Counsel and Arbitrator at Michael Hwang Chambers Singapore and Essex Court Chambers London SINGAPORE Michael Hwang Chambers LLC 8 Marina Boulevard, #06-02 Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 1 Singapore 018981 Tel: (+65) 6634 6250 Fax: (+65)6834 3400 Email: [email protected] Website: www.mhwang.com LONDON SYDNEY (Overseas Associate Member) Hon. Arbitrator Member (Non- Essex Court Chambers resident) 12 Wentworth Selborne Chambers 24-28 Lincoln’s Inn Fields 180 Phillip St Sydney NSW 2000 Australia London WC2A 3EG Tel: (+61) 2 9232 4016 England Fax: (+61) 2 9221 7183 Tel : (+44) 207 813 8000 Fax : (+44) 207 813 8080 Dr Michael Hwang received his legal education at Oxford University (both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels) where he was a College Scholar and Prizewinner. He then took up a teaching appointment at the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney before returning to Singapore to commence private practice in 1968 with Allen & Gledhill, where he served as a partner for more than 30 years. In 1991 Dr Hwang was appointed a Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court (a full time post equivalent to the office of a contract High Court Judge) for a fixed term which expired at the end of 1992. During his term of office, Dr Hwang dealt with a full caseload across the whole range of civil litigation. 15 of his judgments are reported in the Singapore Law Reports, and several of these have been referred to with approval by other courts and academic commentators. He returned to private practice at the beginning of 1993 as Head of Litigation at Allen & Gledhill (currently Singapore’s largest law practice).
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Case As A
    CSJ‐ 08 ‐ 0006.0 Settle or fight? Far Eastern Economic Review and Singapore In the summer of 2006, Hugo Restall—editor-in-chief of the monthly Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER)--published an article about a marginalized member of the political opposition in Singapore. The piece asserted that the Singapore government had a remarkable record of winning libel suits, which suggested a deliberate effort to neutralize opponents and subdue the press. Restall hypothesized that instances of corruption were going unreported because the incentive to investigate them was outweighed by the threat of an unwinnable libel suit. Singapore’s ruling family reacted swiftly. Lawyers for Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his father Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, asserted that the article amounted to an accusation against their clients of personal incompetence and corruption. In a series of letters, the Lees’ counsel demanded a printed apology, removal of the offending article from FEER’s website, and compensation for damages. The magazine maintained that Restall’s piece was not libelous; nonetheless, it offered to take mitigating action short of the three demands. But the Lees remained adamant. Then, in a move whose timing defied coincidence, the government Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts informed FEER that henceforth it would be subject to new, and onerous, regulations. These actions were not without precedent. Singapore was an authoritarian, if prosperous, country. The Lee family--which claimed that the country’s ruling precepts were rooted in Confucianism, a philosophy that vested power in an enlightened ruler—tolerated no criticism. The Lees had been in charge for decades.
    [Show full text]