ReSolution Issue 16

February 2018

This is a particularly special issue as it also marks the launch of the New Zealand International Arbitration Centre’s (NZIAC) 2018 Rules for Arbitration, Mediation, and Arb-Med. With New Zealand’s well developed and trusted legal system, world class infrastructure, and ‘safe nation’ status, NZIAC is ideally positioned to become the Trans-Pacific Region’s premier forum to handle the expected growth in complex, cross-border commercial and investment disputes in the region. There is no question that the release by NZIAC of its 2018 suite of Rules will be keenly followed and will undoubtedly mark one of the most significant developments on the international dispute resolution scene this year.

In this issue we look at arb-med and repudiatory breach in the context of such a unitary agreement, when expert determination clauses go wrong, changes to the Thai Arbitration Act, applications for setting aside arbitral awards will require evidence of misconduct or irregularity and not just loss of confidence in the arbitrator’s ability; and more.

In Case in Brief, Sarah Redding looks at three recent cases (Oao v Magneco Meterel UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 2208 (Comm); Glencore Agriculture BV v Conqueror Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 2893 (Comm); and, Sino Chanel Asia Ltd v dana Shipping & Trading Pte Singapore & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1703) which demonstrate the importance of technical and procedural accuracy in drafting and serving arbitration documents.



  • Singapore High Court Dismisses Stay Applications on basis of repudiatory breach of Med-Arb agreements
  • Snapping the olive branch: when expert determination clauses go wrong
  • Proposed amendments to the Thai Arbitration Act
  • Courts re-affirm their pro-arbitration stance
  • Stinging judicial criticism, loss of confidence and errors of law not sufficient to set aside an award
  • Case in Brief by Sarah Redding
    • Oao v Magneco Metrel UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 2208 (Comm)
    • Glencore Agriculture BV v Conqueror Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 2893 (Comm)
    • Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping & Trading Pte Singapore & Another [2017] EWCA Civ 1703





Skip to content