Search

Copyright of Principia (2790-377X) is the property of Universidad Monteavila and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The new civil procedure rules for the General Division of the High Court in Singapore, excluding the Singapore International Commercial Court-the Rules of Court 2021-were gazetted on 1 December 2021, and will come into operation on 1 April 2022. This article examines the impact of the new civil justice regime on the Singapore courts' approach to assuming jurisdiction over foreign-based defendants (the "service-out jurisdiction"). Prior to its publication, it had been anticipated that ROC 2021 would significantly alter the manner in which the service-out jurisdiction would be asserted. However, as this article highlights, under ROC 2021, and the accompanying Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, the courts' overall approach to exercising jurisdiction over defendants outside Singapore is destined to remain largely unaltered. In general terms, this outcome is to be welcomed, as it avoids the conceptual and practical problems that would have arisen had some of the more far-reaching reforms proposed when drafting ROC 2021 been, in fact, implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, Singapore has played an important role in the growth and success of the old maritime Silk Road. Today, Singapore remains an important stop on the Belt and Road, though its advantages now also lie in its position as a trusted, neutral forum for the efficient resolution of disputes as well as a platform for the sharing of ideas for the development of a legal framework for dispute resolution in the Belt and Road Initiative. Three initiatives have been taken by Singapore to strengthen its new position, including the Asian Business Law Institute, the Singapore International Commercial Court, and the Singapore–China Annual Legal and Judicial Roundtable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The SICC, a division of the Singapore High Court, opened its doors about a year ago. This new state court is the latest addition to Singapore's comprehensive strategy for providing dispute resolution services. To sum it up in one sentence, the SICC will have a familiar ring to users of English Commercial Court litigation, as the English Commercial Court and its transnational success provided a model and an inspiration for the architects of the SICC structure. The SICC's rules on jurisdiction and procedure follow well-known patterns of many common law systems. However, and notwithstanding its common law origin, the SICC is also set up to cater to the specific needs and expectations of civil law users and practitioners, and in particular in a transnational and mixed legal context. The SICC was established to complement, not to replace, Singapore's arbitration landscape. The SICC should therefore be welcomed as an interesting additional option for dispute resolution in the region, although it might not, for most European users, be an alternative to international arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on the author's extensive personal experience as an international arbitrator, Senior Counsel in Singapore, and the non-resident Chief Justice of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts, this article examines the relationship between commercial courts and international arbitration in two jurisdictions, Singapore and Dubai. The author discusses the impact that the newly established Singapore International Commercial Court (SICC) will most likely have upon the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) to conclude that these two dispute resolution forums will most likely complement one another. The article then moves on to discuss a novel, mutually beneficial interaction between the courts and arbitral institutions through the new Practice Direction of the DIFC which seeks to 'convert' court judgments into arbitration awards, thereby allowing successful parties to enforce their court judgments through either arbitration or litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]