With the indiscriminate spread of COVID-19 and the corresponding prevalence of remote hearing tools across the world, it has never been easier for disputes to be heard in a foreign jurisdiction of one’s choice. However, all that glisters is not gold, and it pays for parties to pay special attention to the drafting of arbitration agreements and, in particular, references to the arbitral seat.
In Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2019, the Court of Appeal of Brunei Darussalam (“BCA“) considered an arbitration agreement that seemingly referenced both Brunei and Singapore as potential arbitral seats. Preferring a commonsensical approach, the BCA interpreted the arbitration agreement as having clearly established Brunei as the proper seat of the arbitration.
The BCA’s decision goes beyond academic interest or discussion, and serves as a cautionary tale for commercial parties. In this Update, we look at the practical significance of the arbitral seat and how the wrong interpretation of an arbitration agreement may result in the uninformed party’s waste of significant time and costs.
The Plaintiff shipowners in this case were successfully represented by Kendall Tan, Yip Li Ming, and Shaun Ou from Rajah & Tann Asia’s Brunei desk.
For more information, click here to read the full Legal Update.
