LITT
Try LITT free
The Enforcement Shield: How Justice Colman Defended the Integrity of Arbitral Awards in Fletcher v Florance
A masterclass in judicial restraint and the rejection of 'public policy' as a tactical delay mechanism in the DIFC Courts.
The Constitutional Shield: How Fiske v Firuzeh Cemented the DIFC’s Arbitral Autonomy
A deep dive into the 2014-2015 arbitration saga that defined the boundaries between Federal CPC and the DIFC’s independent legal order. On January 5, 2015, H.E.
Eava v Egan [2014] DIFC ARB 005: Why Mere Arbitral Delay Fails the Public Policy Test
Justice Sir David Steel’s decisive rejection of procedural obstructionism in international award enforcement
Ocie v Ortensia [2020] DIFC ARB 009: The Limits of Disclosure in Parallel Arbitral Challenges
H.E. Justice Omar Al Muhairi clarifies the scope of RDC 23.11 in the context of mandatory arbitral award recognition. On 19 February 2020, H.E.
Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corp and another v Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd [2013] SGHC 243
The High Court allowed the appeal in Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corp v Asia Pulp & Paper Co Ltd, reinstating the registration of a foreign judgment despite the expiration of the 12-month statutory period, ruling that the interests of justice favored enforcement over procedural delay.
Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd) [2010] SGHC 108
In Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd), the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Arbitration, Enforcement — Foreign award.