ReSolution Issue 13

May 2017

In this issue we feature arbitration with articles on the finality of awards, amendments to the Arbitration Act, the role of arbitral secretaries, enforcement of international arbitration awards, security for costs, and the nightmare that can be the reality of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses.

We also look at therapeutic jurisprudence and how it might impact law reform, revisit neutral evaluation, and more.

In Case in Brief, Jeremy Upson discusses the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in BPE Solidtors v Hughes Holland in which the court held BPE had no legal responsibility for Hughes-Holland’s losses sustained after a property development failed as the loss suffered was not within the scope of BPE’s duty. and John Green discuss the recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in the Wilson Taylor v Duna-Jet case in which the court upheld the validity of a unilateral or ·asymmetrical’ arbitration agreement which made arbitration of a future dispute entirely optional at the election of the respondent.

  • Arbitration: when a final award is not final by Albert Monichino QC
  • Neutral Evaluation Revisited by Royden Hindle
  • Therapeutic Jurisprudence: what is it? will it hurt? by Dr Warren Brookbanks
  • Arbitration Amendment Bill by John Green
  • High Court dismisses application to remove arbitrators by Gordon Bell
  • Important Second Circuit Decision on Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards by Laurence Shore and Conor Doyle
  • Whose role is it anyway? Who has jurisdiction over contractual pre-conditions to arbitration? by Peter Hirst
  • Case in Brief – Double Edition: Wilson Taylor Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Dyna-Jet Pte Ltd and BPE Solicitors v Hughes-Holland by John Green and Jeremy Upson
  • A global perspective on availability of security for costs and claim in international arbitration mirage or oasis? by Chris Parker, Elaine Wong, Citta Satryani, and Elizabeth Kantor
Skip to content