Air breathing and respiratory adaptations in diver animals
ASIA’S ARBITRATION CENTRES: CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR RUSSIAN PARTIES?
1. ASIA’S ARBITRATION CENTRES: CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR
RUSSIAN PARTIES?
Kent Phillips,
со-глава арбитражной практики и партнер в сингапурском офисе
фирмы «Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP»
20. ASIA’S ARBITRATION CENTRES: CREDIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR
RUSSIAN PARTIES?
Kent Phillips, со-глава арбитражной практики и партнер в сингапурском офисе
фирмы «Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP»
This document provides a general summary only and is not intended to be comprehensive. Specific legal advice should always be sought
in relation to the particular facts of a given situation.
Notas do Editor
Perspective: NZ lawyer, London for 15 years, Russian cases in London courts and arbitration, Asia for 3, arbitrator and counsel
The incumbents
Positive developments, but will foreign parties always accept a Russia seat?
Two of the 8 Alpha+ cities behind only London and New York
Hosking example, investor state arbitrations, other centres in region not doing this
Important cities - 2012 Economist Intelligence Unit – ranked Singapore and Hong Kong 3 and 4 in terms of competitiveness
And these don’t include ICC or ad hoc
‘The legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials’ - Lord Bingham
Hong Kong rated 4th out of 148 countries in widely quoted index of judicial independence
Singapore being 7th out of 175 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2014
Foreign firms can be involved, high quality and increasingly specialist local profession, civil and common law experience
Kept right up to date: “Arbitral Tribunal” example
Well established judicial respect for arbitration - enforce arbitration agreements, leave awards alone
Strong local arbitration communities, brings in the top international arbitrators, Lord Hoffman, Gary Born as President
Rules in Russian!
Note departures from Model Law
Foreign arbitrators allowed, note fee concern, no neutral nationality rules
Inquisitorial process, IBA rules increasingly accepted
Heavily administered style
Good measures: SPC’s response on enforcement/public policy exception, response to manage uncertainty from CIETAC split
Progressive rules: emergency arbitrators, consolidation provisions, expedited procedures
Broad definition of domestic
EA in rules but not yet recognized in Act
Note ICC’s clause is untested
Conflicting court decisions now resolved by SPC, but new subcommissions of CIETAC in Shenzhen and Shanghai bring fresh doubt
Is not attracting many cases which are unconnected with PRC
Clauses: specify language, allow for offshore hearings, neutral arbitrator nationality and market fees
SIAC has had 42+ EA – a well oiled machine
Expedited is now commonplace, thresholds increasing reflecting confidence in it
Extensive joinder and consolidation powers articles 27-29 of HKIAC rules
SIAC and HKIAC dual track fee structures
Formal processes in SIAC/SIMC protocol
SICC emulating Commercial Court in London so familiar to Russian parties, some features common to arbitration, supporting role for it
Real focus on users – entrepreneurial, hungry to attract business
Different emphasis - HK at more radical end of innovative spectrum; SIAC merely progressive – goes for well thought out, well tested solutions (e.g. SIAC – long EA track record with 42 cases; tried and tested)
HKIAC – no scrutiny of awards, SIAC light touch scrutiny
Hong Kong and connections with China perceived as a strength and a weakness
We do both. My personal preference is …
Asia’s leading seats are under-rated, all the advantages of the incumbent options, few disadvantages apart from geography
