Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards is a specialized practice area in Singapore's legal system. This area encompasses 14 cases from 2005 to 2024.
Leading Law Firms
Analysis of law firms specializing in Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, ranked by case volume and success rates.
Law Firm | Cases |
---|---|
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP33.33% success rate | 3 cases21.4% of area |
WongPartnership LLP50.00% success rate | 2 cases14.3% of area |
Drew & Napier LLC50.00% success rate | 2 cases14.3% of area |
Rev Law LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Selvam LLC100.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Gabriel Law Corporation0.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Arul Chew & Partners0.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC0.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Wong Partnership LLP0.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Harry Elias Partnership100.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Notable Lawyers
Leading lawyers practicing in Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, ranked by case volume and success rates.
Lawyer | Cases |
---|---|
Ker Yanguang50.00% success rate | 2 cases14.3% of area |
Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai50.00% success rate | 2 cases14.3% of area |
Chou Sean Yu88.89% success rate | 2 cases14.3% of area |
David Isidore Tan0.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Liew Min Yi Glenna0.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Jasmine Thng Khai Fang100.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Sunil Sudheesan100.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Chan Kit Munn Claudia100.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Sarbjit Singh Chopra100.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Charlene Wee Swee Ting100.00% success rate | 1 cases7.1% of area |
Recent Judgments
Displaying 14 most recent judgments out of 14 total cases
No. | Title | Court | Decision Date | Outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Hilton v Sun Travels: Contempt of Court for Failure to Comply with Arbitration Award | General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore | 08 May 2024 | Sun Travels found in contempt of court and fined $100,000. Siyam, its director, initially sentenced to imprisonment, later substituted with a $100,000 fine upon full payment of the judgment debt. |
2 | Pertamina v P-H-O-E-N-I-X: Anti-Suit Injunction & Arbitration Agreement Dispute | Singapore International Commercial Court | 25 Apr 2024 | Applications in Summons 8 dismissed; orders in ORC 5 to stand. No order made regarding valid service of OA 1. PIMD to pay Phoenix costs for SUM 10. |
3 | Navayo International AG v Ministry of Defence: Enforcement of Arbitral Award & Public Policy | Singapore International Commercial Court | 21 Apr 2024 | Ministry of Defence, Government of Indonesia's application for an extension of time to file SUM 589 is dismissed. |
4 | Pilgrim v Asian Appraisal: Negligence in Asset Valuation and Loan Security | General Division of the High Court | 16 Jan 2022 | Plaintiff's claims dismissed. |
5 | - | 11 Feb 2019 | Unknown | |
6 | - | 20 Dec 2018 | Unknown | |
7 | Rakna Arakshaka Lanka Ltd v Avant Garde: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Lack of Jurisdiction | High Court | 01 Apr 2018 | Application dismissed |
8 | Hilton v Sun Travels: Anti-Suit Injunction for Breach of Arbitration Agreement | High Court of the Republic of Singapore | 13 Mar 2018 | Limited permanent anti-suit injunction granted. |
9 | Mount Eastern v H&C S Holdings: Setting Aside Arbitration Award for Iron Ore Supply Dispute | High Court | 11 Jan 2016 | Applications dismissed. |
10 | Astro Nusantara v PT Ayunda: Enforcement of International Arbitration Awards & Jurisdictional Challenges | High Court | 21 Oct 2012 | Registrar's Appeals dismissed; Summonses dismissed. |
11 | Desert Palace Inc v Poh Soon Kiat: Enforcing Foreign Judgments on Wagering Contracts | High Court | 01 Sep 2008 | Appeal Allowed |
12 | - | 28 Feb 2007 | Unknown | |
13 | Tan Kay Beng v PP: Theft & Criminal Intimidation Sentencing Appeal | High Court | 06 Jul 2006 | Appeal Allowed |
14 | Tan Yeow Hiang Kenneth v Tan Chor Chuan: Review of Costs in Defamation Action | High Court | 09 Nov 2005 | The court decided that it did not have the power to allow a further reduction on account of the failed defenses. The court also decided that, even if it were open to it to grant a reduction, no reduction ought to be allowed. |