Interpreting contracts under Singapore law in international arbitration — The sequel
Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides in relevant part that, “if the arbitral tribunal rules as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, any party may request … the court … to decide the matter”. One question that arises is, to the extent is...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3042 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5000/viewcontent/Interpreting_Contracts_under_Singapore_Law_in_International_Arbitration___The_Sequel___The_Singapore_Law_Gazette.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides in relevant part that, “if the arbitral tribunal rules as a preliminary question that it has jurisdiction, any party may request … the court … to decide the matter”. One question that arises is, to the extent issues of evidence arise, what rules of evidence should the court apply when “decid[ing] the matter”? Does the Court apply national rules of evidence, or does the Court apply the same rules of evidence, if any, that the tribunal was obliged to apply? This thorny question reared its head recently in a Singapore High Court decision of BQP v BQQ [2018] SGHC 55, which follows an earlier discussion by a different Judge in HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Ltd v Lucky Realty Co Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 93. |
|---|