随着新加坡作为争端解决区域中心的地位不断增强，这些领域的法律框架为支撑其不断提高的地位也在不断发展。
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。
国际仲裁
新加坡国际商事法院审理了依据国际仲裁法案提起的申请
新加坡议会于2018年1月9日通过了一项法案，该法案为新加坡国际商事法院（“SICC”）审理依据国际仲裁法案（”IAA”）提起的争议事项开创了始端。
该修正案的作出意味着目前依据IAA提起的所有申请均可由SICC审理，这将包括：
（a）依据IAA第12A款申请的临时措施（例如：财产保全、证据保全）；
（b）依据《示范法》第13条、参照IAA第3条对仲裁员提出异议；
（c）依据IAA第7条提起的中止程序；
（d）依据IAA第13条进行的证人传唤；
（e）依据IAA第10条对管辖权裁定提起的异议；
（f）依据IAA第24条、参照《示范法》第34条对仲裁裁决提起的异议（即撤销仲裁裁决）；以及
（g）依据IAA第19条、第29条及第31条、参照《纽约公约》对仲裁裁决的承认与执行（或不予承认或执行仲裁裁决）。
SICC旨在处理国际商事争议，此项授予SICC审理IAA申请事项的议案是对IAA争议事项日益复杂化的认可，因为新加坡已成为全球最受欢迎的仲裁地之一。
上诉法院维持了一项撤销投资者与东道国仲裁裁决的裁定
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 [2018] 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。
上诉法院维持了一项撤销仲裁裁决的裁定
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。
高等法院基于如下理由准予了该项撤销：
（i）仲裁庭超出其管辖权范围，认定了被告违反了双方之间合同的第4.2条规定。双方并未主张任何对第4.2条的违约，并且这也不属于双方商定的争议范围内的问题。
（ii）由于仲裁庭偏离（超出）了双方商定的争议范围导致其也未能遵守商定的程序。被申请人并未得到可对这种不遵守商定程序提出异议的机会，因为直到裁决书作出时才出现了第4.2条的违约问题。
(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。
法院基于公共政策撤销了一项对未成年人作出的不利裁决
在BAZ v BBA and others [2018]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。
本案涉及了股份买卖协议（“SSPA”），买方主张该协议是在卖方的欺诈性失实陈述下签署的。争议经过国际商会的审理，仲裁庭作出了支持买方7.2亿新元损害赔偿的裁决，卖方将对损害赔偿共同承担连带承担责任。
然而，在签订合同的关键时刻，一部分卖家还是未成年人。因此，这些未成年人以违反公共政策为由，向新加坡法院提出了撤销该项不利裁决的申请，要求以违反公共政策为由拒绝裁决。高等法院认为，保护未成年人在商业交易中的利益是公共政策的一部分，该裁决书的裁判结果是强制未成年人执行SSPA，并裁决其监护人或负责人对他们欺诈性失实陈述行为承担责任。该裁决违反了新加坡法律赋予的未成年人在合同关系中的保护，并且会损害法院的良知。因此，法院准予了未成年人的申请。
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。
法院不同意中止执行程序以等待仲裁地的撤销仲裁裁决程序
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。
法院驳回了被告的中止申请，并维持了立即执行仲裁裁决的裁定。该裁决表明，在适当的情况下，新加坡法院愿意协助执行仲裁裁决，尽管该裁决在仲裁地已被提起异议（但尚未被撤销）。该裁决还就新加坡法院可能考虑的与其分析相关的一些因素提供了实际指引，例如裁决异议涉及的实体问题以及执行中任何延期可能导致的后果。
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。
文末附英文原文！如果您有进一步的疑问，欢迎垂询本文的作者。
联系作者：
供稿丨立杰亚洲（Rajah & Tann Asia）
译丨黄依璠（星瀚RICC）
编丨唐诗颖（星瀚运营）
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
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.