2018年，新加坡法院在国际仲裁方面取得了许多进展，许多重大仲裁案件进入到法院进行审理，新加坡立杰律师事务所（Rajah Tann Singapore LLP）有幸参与了这些案件。在本文中，我们将介绍一些2018年中值得注意的发展。
在Kingdomof Lesotho v Swissbourgh Diamond Mines(Pty) Limited and others  SGHC 195一案中，新加坡高院准予了莱索托王国关于撤销投资者 – 东道国仲裁裁决的申请。这标志着新加坡法院首次准予了基于实体问题提出撤销投资者 - 国家仲裁裁决异议的申请。该申请涉及了国际仲裁法、国际投资法和国际公法的新型问题。
在Swissbourgh Diamond Mines(Pty) Limited and others v Kingdom of Lesotho  SGCA 81一案中，上诉法院维持了高等法院的裁定，并进一步阐述了一审中提出的争议问题。本案的上诉人投资者向常设仲裁法院（“PCA”）提起了针对莱索托王国的索赔。尽管PCA仲裁庭支持了上诉人的主张，但新加坡法院撤销了整个裁决，并认为PCA仲裁庭对该争议没有管辖权。上诉法院还认为，新加坡法院有权撤销该裁。
新加坡立杰律师事务所的律师：Paul Tan律师、 Alessa Pang律师以及David Isidore律师为莱索托王国成功代理了本案。
在GD Midea Air Conditioning Equipment Co Ltd v Tornado Consumer Goods Ltd  SGHC 193一案中，高等法院基于管辖权及程序问题准予了一项关于撤销仲裁裁决的关键部分的申请，涉及的金额高达约900万美金。2018年3月1日，上诉法院维持了高等法院的裁定及其理由，并维持了撤销令。
(iii)仲裁庭违反了自然正义规则，特别是公平审理规则 - 拒绝向被申请人提供就第4.2条违约问题进行陈述的充分机会。
上诉法院维持了高等法院的判决及其理由。新加坡立杰律师事务所的Paul Tan律师和Devathas Satianathan律师在高等法院和上诉法院成功为被申请人代理了本案。
在BAZ v BBA and others SGHC 275一案中，高等法院审理了一项涉及7.2亿新元的仲裁裁决，该裁决所裁决的对象中包括了一些未成年人。法院审议了执行这一针对未成年人裁决背后的公共政策问题，并最终决定撤销该针对未成年人作出的不利裁决。
新加坡立杰律师事务所的Lee Eng Beng S.C.律师、Kelvin Poon律师、Alyssa Leong和Devathas Satianathan律师为这些未成年人成功代理了本案。
在Man Diesel& Turbo SE v I.M. Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd SGHC 132一案中，高等法院审议了是否应中止执行仲裁裁决的程序，以等待丹麦作为仲裁地审理仲裁裁决异议的程序裁判。据了解，这是新加坡法院第一次详细阐述在审理中止申请和担保交叉申请时应适用的标准。
新加坡立杰律师事务所的Danny Ong律师、Yam Wern-Jhien律师以及Annabelle Teo律师在这些程序中为原告成功代理了本案。
供稿丨立杰亚洲（Rajah & Tann Asia）
新加坡立杰律师事务所(Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)系新加坡和东南亚最具规模和影响力的综合性律师事务所，有约650名律师。多年来，我们始终站在亚洲法律市场的前沿，洞悉当地法律、深谙各地商业文化。我们以新加坡为核心，在中国、印尼、马来西亚、泰国、老挝、越南、柬埔寨、缅甸、菲律宾均设有代表处、分所或联合所，另外在新加坡办公室还有专注于日本和南亚的区域性业务部，能为本区域各地的客户提供优质服务。立杰律师事务所在收购兼并、外商直接投资、跨境投资、上市、融资、资本市场、海事及海商、国际贸易、基础设施与建筑、争议解决与国际仲裁等众多法律领域均占有市场主导地位。
Developmentsin International Arbitration, Construction Projects in 2018
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.
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  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  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  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  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 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.