隨著新加坡作爲爭端解決區域中心的地位不斷增強，這些領域的法律框架爲支撐其不斷提高的地位也在不斷發展。
2018年，新加坡法院在國際仲裁方面取得了許多進展，許多重大仲裁案件進入到法院進行審理，新加坡立傑律師事務所（Rajah Tann Singapore LLP）有幸參與了這些案件。在本文中，我們將介紹一些2018年中值得注意的發展。
國際仲裁
新加坡國際商事法院審理了依據國際仲裁法案提起的申請
新加坡議會于2018年1月9日通過了一項法案，該法案爲新加坡國際商事法院（“SICC”）審理依據國際仲裁法案（”IAA”）提起的爭議事項開創了始端。
該修正案的作出意味著目前依據IAA提起的所有申請均可由SICC審理，這將包括：
（a）依據IAA第12A款申請的臨時措施（例如：財産保全、證據保全）；
（b）依據《示範法》第13條、參照IAA第3條對仲裁員提出異議；
（c）依據IAA第7條提起的中止程序；
（d）依據IAA第13條進行的證人傳喚；
（e）依據IAA第10條對管轄權裁定提起的異議；
（f）依據IAA第24條、參照《示範法》第34條對仲裁裁決提起的異議（即撤銷仲裁裁決）；以及
（g）依據IAA第19條、第29條及第31條、參照《紐約公約》對仲裁裁決的承認與執行（或不予承認或執行仲裁裁決）。
SICC旨在處理國際商事爭議，此項授予SICC審理IAA申請事項的議案是對IAA爭議事項日益複雜化的認可，因爲新加坡已成爲全球最受歡迎的仲裁地之一。
上訴法院維持了一項撤銷投資者與東道國仲裁裁決的裁定
在Kingdomof Lesotho v Swissbourgh Diamond Mines(Pty) Limited and others [2017] SGHC 195一案中，新加坡高院准予了萊索托王國關于撤銷投資者 – 東道國仲裁裁決的申請。這標志著新加坡法院首次准予了基于實體問題提出撤銷投資者 – 國家仲裁裁決異議的申請。該申請涉及了國際仲裁法、國際投資法和國際公法的新型問題。
在Swissbourgh Diamond Mines(Pty) Limited and others v Kingdom of Lesotho [2018] SGCA 81一案中，上訴法院維持了高等法院的裁定，並進一步闡述了一審中提出的爭議問題。本案的上訴人投資者向常設仲裁法院（“PCA”）提起了針對萊索托王國的索賠。盡管PCA仲裁庭支持了上訴人的主張，但新加坡法院撤銷了整個裁決，並認爲PCA仲裁庭對該爭議沒有管轄權。上訴法院還認爲，新加坡法院有權撤銷該裁。
新加坡立傑律師事務所的律師：Paul Tan律師、 Alessa Pang律師以及David Isidore律師爲萊索托王國成功代理了本案。
上訴法院維持了一項撤銷仲裁裁決的裁定
在GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd [2017] SGHC 193一案中，高等法院基于管轄權及程序問題准予了一項關于撤銷仲裁裁決的關鍵部分的申請，涉及的金額高達約900萬美金。2018年3月1日，上訴法院維持了高等法院的裁定及其理由，並維持了撤銷令。
高等法院基于如下理由准予了該項撤銷：
（i）仲裁庭超出其管轄權範圍，認定了被告違反了雙方之間合同的第4.2條規定。雙方並未主張任何對第4.2條的違約，並且這也不屬于雙方商定的爭議範圍內的問題。
（ii）由于仲裁庭偏離（超出）了雙方商定的爭議範圍導致其也未能遵守商定的程序。被申請人並未得到可對這種不遵守商定程序提出異議的機會，因爲直到裁決書作出時才出現了第4.2條的違約問題。
(iii)仲裁庭違反了自然正義規則，特別是公平審理規則 – 拒絕向被申請人提供就第4.2條違約問題進行陳述的充分機會。
上訴法院維持了高等法院的判決及其理由。新加坡立傑律師事務所的Paul Tan律師和Devathas Satianathan律師在高等法院和上訴法院成功爲被申請人代理了本案。
法院基于公共政策撤銷了一項對未成年人作出的不利裁決
在BAZ v BBA and others [2018]SGHC 275一案中，高等法院審理了一項涉及7.2億新元的仲裁裁決，該裁決所裁決的對象中包括了一些未成年人。法院審議了執行這一針對未成年人裁決背後的公共政策問題，並最終決定撤銷該針對未成年人作出的不利裁決。
本案涉及了股份買賣協議（“SSPA”），買方主張該協議是在賣方的欺詐性失實陳述下簽署的。爭議經過國際商會的審理，仲裁庭作出了支持買方7.2億新元損害賠償的裁決，賣方將對損害賠償共同承擔連帶承擔責任。
然而，在簽訂合同的關鍵時刻，一部分賣家還是未成年人。因此，這些未成年人以違反公共政策爲由，向新加坡法院提出了撤銷該項不利裁決的申請，要求以違反公共政策爲由拒絕裁決。高等法院認爲，保護未成年人在商業交易中的利益是公共政策的一部分，該裁決書的裁判結果是強制未成年人執行SSPA，並裁決其監護人或負責人對他們欺詐性失實陳述行爲承擔責任。該裁決違反了新加坡法律賦予的未成年人在合同關系中的保護，並且會損害法院的良知。因此，法院准予了未成年人的申請。
新加坡立傑律師事務所的Lee Eng Beng S.C.律師、Kelvin Poon律師、Alyssa Leong和Devathas Satianathan律師爲這些未成年人成功代理了本案。
法院不同意中止執行程序以等待仲裁地的撤銷仲裁裁決程序
在Man Diesel& Turbo SE v I.M. Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd [2018]SGHC 132一案中，高等法院審議了是否應中止執行仲裁裁決的程序，以等待丹麥作爲仲裁地審理仲裁裁決異議的程序裁判。據了解，這是新加坡法院第一次詳細闡述在審理中止申請和擔保交叉申請時應適用的標准。
法院駁回了被告的中止申請，並維持了立即執行仲裁裁決的裁定。該裁決表明，在適當的情況下，新加坡法院願意協助執行仲裁裁決，盡管該裁決在仲裁地已被提起異議（但尚未被撤銷）。該裁決還就新加坡法院可能考慮的與其分析相關的一些因素提供了實際指引，例如裁決異議涉及的實體問題以及執行中任何延期可能導致的後果。
新加坡立傑律師事務所的Danny Ong律師、Yam Wern-Jhien律師以及Annabelle Teo律師在這些程序中爲原告成功代理了本案。
文末附英文原文！如果您有進一步的疑問，歡迎垂詢本文的作者。
聯系作者：
供稿丨立傑亞洲（Rajah & Tann Asia）
譯丨黃依璠（星瀚RICC）
編丨唐詩穎（星瀚運營）
新加坡立傑律師事務所(Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)系新加坡和東南亞最具規模和影響力的綜合性律師事務所，有約650名律師。多年來，我們始終站在亞洲法律市場的前沿，洞悉當地法律、深谙各地商業文化。我們以新加坡爲核心，在中國、印尼、馬來西亞、泰國、老撾、越南、柬埔寨、緬甸、菲律賓均設有代表處、分所或聯合所，另外在新加坡辦公室還有專注于日本和南亞的區域性業務部，能爲本區域各地的客戶提供優質服務。立傑律師事務所在收購兼並、外商直接投資、跨境投資、上市、融資、資本市場、海事及海商、國際貿易、基礎設施與建築、爭議解決與國際仲裁等衆多法律領域均占有市場主導地位。
Developmentsin International Arbitration, Construction Projects in 2018
Introduction
As Singapore continues to strengthen its position as a regional hub for disputeresolution and infrastructure, the legal framework in these areas is also underconstant development to support its growing capabilities.
2018 saw many advancements in the areas of International Arbitration, Construction projects of the cases that went before the Singapore courts, Rajah Tann Singapore llP had the opportunity to be involved in a number of significant decisions.
In this Update we lookat some of the noteworthy developments from 2018.
International arbitration
SICC to Hear Applications under the International Arbitration Act
The Singapore Parliament on 9 January 2018 passed a bill that paves the way for the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC” )to hear matters under the International arbitration Act （”IAA”).
The amendment means that allapplications currently under the IAA are capable of being heard by the SICC. These would include:
(a) Interim measures under section 12A of the IAA;
(b) Challenges to arbitratorsunder article 13 of the Model law read with section 3 of the IAA;
(c) Stays under section 7 of the IAA;
(d) Subpoenas under section 13 of the IAA;
(e) Appeals on ruling ofjurisdiction under section 10 of the IAA；
(f) Challenges to awards undersection 24 of the IAA read with article 34 of the Model Law; and
(g) Enforcement andrecognition of awards (or resisting the enforcement and recognition of awards) undersections 19. 29 and 31 of the IAA read with the New York Convention.
The SICC is designed to deal with international commercial disputes, and the move to allow the SICC to hear IAA applications is a recognition of the increasing complexity of IAA matters as Singapore has catapulted to being one of the most popular seats worldwide.
Court of Appeal Upholds Setting Aside of Investor-State Arbitral Award
In Kingdomof Lesotho v Swissbourgh Diamond Mines(Pty) Limited and others [2017] SGHC 195,the High Court allowed the Kingdom of Lesotho s application to set aside aninvestor-State arbitral award. This marked the first time the Singapore courts allowed an application to set aside an investor-State arbitration award on themerits. The application engaged novel issues of international arbitral law, international investment law and public international law.
In Swissbourgh DiamondMines(Pty) Limited and others v Kingdom of Lesotho [2018] SGCA 81, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Courts decision, further expounding on the issues raisedat first instance.
The Appellant investors in this case had brought a claim against the Kingdom of Lesotho before the Permanent Court of Arbitration(“PCA”). While the PCA Tribunal found in favour of theappellants, the Singapore courts set aside the award in its entirety, holding that the PCA Tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the dispute. The Court of Appeal also held that the Singapore courts had jurisdiction to set aside the award.
The Kingdom of Lesotho wassuccessfully represented by Paul Tan, Alessa Pang and David Isidore an of Rajah&TannSingapore LLP.
Court of Appeal Upholds Setting Aside of Arbitral Award
In GD Midea AirConditioning Equipment Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd [2017] SGHC 193, the High Court allowed an application to set aside the key parts of an arbitral award-amounting to around US$9m-on jurisdictional and procedural grounds. On 1 March 2018, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Courts decision and its reasons, maintaining the setting aside order.
The High Courtallowed the setting aside on the basis that:
(i) The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in finding that the respondent had breached a clause 4.2 of the contract between the parties. The parties had not alleged any breach of clause 4.2, nor was it an issue within the agreed list of issues.
(ii) The tribunal failed to adhere to the agreed procedure by departing from the agreed list of issues. The Respondent was not afforded any opportunity to object to this departure from the agreed procedure as the issue of the breach of clause 4.2 did not arise until theaward was released.
（iii） The tribunal had breached the rules of natural justice-specifically the fair hearing rule-by denying the Respondent a full opportunity to present its case with regard to the breach of Clause 4.2 point.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court and its reasons. The Respondentwas successfully represented at the High Court and the Court of Appeal by PaulTan and Devathas Satianathan of Rajah& Tann Singapore LLP.
Court sets asideArbitral Award as against minors on public policy Grounds
In BAZ v BBA and others [2018] SGHC 275, the High Court was faced with a S$720 million arbitral award which had been issued against-amongst others-a number ofminors(the”Minors”). The Court considered the public policy issues behind enforcing an award against minors, and ultimately decided to set asidethe award as against the minors.
This case involved a Share Sale and Purchase Agreement(“SSPA”), which the Buyers alleged was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the sellers. The dispute went before the International Chamber of Commerce, and the tribunal issued an award of S$720 million in favour of the Buyers,with the Sellers being held jointly and severally liable for the damages.
However, a number of the Sellers were minors at the material time. The minors thus applied to the Singapore court to have the award set aside as against them on the ground that it was against public policy. The High Court held that it was part of the public policy of Singapore to protect the interests of minors incommercial transactions， and that the effect of the award was to enforce the SSPA on the Minors and to impose the liability for the fraudulent misrepresentation of their guardian or principal on them. This would violate the protection given to minors in contractual relationships under Singapore law and shock the conscience of the court. The Court thus allowed the Minors application.
The Minors were successfully represented by Lee Eng Beng S.C., Kelvin Poon, Alyssa Leong and Matthew Koh of Rajah Tann Singapore LLP.
Court Rejects Application to Adjourn Enforcement Proceedings Pending Setting Aside Challenge inArbitral Seat
In Man Diesel& Turbo SE V/M. Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd [2018]SGHC132, the High Court considered whether it should adjourn proceedings to enforcean arbitral award pending the determination of proceedings challenging the award in Denmark, being the seat of the arbitration. It is understood that this is the first time the Singapore Court has elaborated on the test to be applied when dealing with an application for adjournment and a cross-application forsecurity.
The Court rejected the Defendant’s adjournment application, and upheld theorder granting leave for the immediate enforcement of the arbitral award. This decision illustrates that, in appropriate cases, the Singapore Courts are willing to assist in the enforcement of arbitral awards, not with standing that the award is being challenged in the seat of arbitration. This decision also offers practical guidance as to some of the factors the Singapore Courts may consider relevant to their analysis, such as the merits of the setting aside challenge and the likely consequences of any further delays in enforcement.
Danny Ong, Yam Wern-Jhien and Annabelle Teo of Rajah Tann Singapore LLPsuccessfully represented the plaintiff in these proceedings.
