We use cookies to improve your web browsing experience, to edit your preferences click on "Learn More"
OKLearn MoreWe may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.
If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
Private: Privacy Policy
Case Law Update: DFM v DFL [2024] SGCA 41
In DFM v DFL [2024] SGCA 41 (“DFM v DFL”) the Singapore Court of Appeal (“CA”) has confirmed that a party to an arbitration may be considered to have acceded to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal for the purposes of an interim application for relief, even where it has challenged the tribunal’s jurisdiction to decide the merits of the substantive dispute in the arbitration.
The judgment of the CA serves as a cautionary statement that a party cannot effectively “reserve” an objection to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine an interim application and raise it subsequently, such as at the enforcement stage. The courts are likely to view this as an impermissible “hedging” exercise.
Read our case law update here
Case Update: Vietnam Oil & Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2024] SGHC 244
Recourse to the Singapore Courts for the setting aside of an arbitration award pursuant to s 24(b) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 (the “IAA”) and/or Arts 34(2)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) can be a complex and intricate matter. Under Singapore law, the General Division of the High Court may set aside the award of an arbitral tribunal if there has been a breach of natural justice.
The twin pillars of natural justice are the rule against bias and the fair hearing rule. A breach of the fair hearing rule could possibly arise from the chain of reasoning that an arbitral tribunal adopts in its award, as the chain of reasoning must be one which the parties had reasonable notice of and which has sufficient nexus to the parties’ arguments. In the case where an arbitral tribunal’s chain of reasoning departs from the cases of both parties, the High Court in Vietnam Oil and Gas Group v Joint Stock Company (Power Machines – ZTL, LMZ, Electrosila Energomachexport) [2024] SGHC 244 provides valuable insight into the nuances on the remission and setting aside of arbitral awards.
Read our case law update here
Case Update: Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony (DBS Bank Ltd, non-party) [2024] SGHC 227
In its recent decision in Alliance Divine Impex Pte Ltd v Arulappan Tony (DBS Bank Ltd, non-party) [2024] SGHC 227 (“Alliance Divine”), the High Court of Singapore confirmed that a party can obtain bank statements directly from a bank under s 175(1) of the Evidence Act 1893 (the “EA”) for the purpose of formulating tortious claims against a prospective defendant.
However, the court emphasised that s 175(1) of the EA itself did not provide a substantive basis for a party to seek disclosure from a bank. Instead, a party seeking disclosure under s 175(1) had to demonstrate that it had a substantive right to the documents independent of s 175(1).
Therefore, parties seeking to obtain disclosure of banking documents of a prospective defendant directly from such defendant’s bank would be well-advised to seek legal assistance to ensure they can show a substantive right to disclosure, independent of s 175(1) of the EA, prior to making such an application.
Read our case update here
Case Update: Maybank Singapore Limited v Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd (Official Receiver, non-party) [2024] SGHC 219
Winding up a debtor company based on its inability to make payment on a statutory demand pursuant to s 125(1)(e) read with s 125(2)(a) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (the “IRDA”) is an option that is frequently pursued by creditors. Under Singapore law, both the statutory demand and the subsequent winding up application are required to be duly served on the debtor company before a winding up order can be made by the Courts.
From time to time, the usual method of service by leaving the documents at the registered address of the debtor company pursuant to s 125(2)(a) of the IRDA becomes unavailable and creditors are faced with the dilemma of which alternative method of service should be utilised. In this context the judgment of the Singapore High Court in Maybank Singapore Limited v Dynamiq Solution Pte Ltd (Official Receiver, non-party) [2024] SGHC 219(“Maybank v Dynamic Solution”) provides useful and rare insight into the nuances of the rules of service and potential pitfalls that creditors may face.
Read our case update here
Case Update: “Sea Justice” [2024] SGCA 32
“The Singapore Court of Appeal (the “CA”) has made it clear in its recent decision in The “Sea Justice” [2024] SGCA 32 that where admiralty in rem proceedings in Singapore have been stayed on the ground of forum non conveniens (a “forum non conveniens stay”) a claimant which has previously obtained a security against arrest will not be allowed to retain it with a view to taking advantage of the higher limits on liability that may be available in Singapore.
While the decision was rendered in the context of admiralty proceedings, it suggests that any party seeking to impose conditions on a forum non conveniens stay of Singapore proceedings will have its arguments carefully scrutinized by the Singapore courts.
Read our case update here