CAN YOU SET ASIDE AN ARBITRAL AWARD WHERE YOU SIT OUT AN ARBITRATION?

In DWJ v DWK [2026] SGHC(I) 18 (“DWJ”), the Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award brought by a party which had chosen not to participate in the arbitration.

Shehzadul HaqOctober 5, 2026

CAN GOOD FAITH BE IMPLIED INTO DETAILED FRAMEWORK AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS?

In Svella Connect Ltd v Virgin Media Ltd [2026] EWHC 2223 (TCC), the English Technology and Construction Court considered whether duties of good faith could be implied into detailed framework and settlement agreements.

Xian Ying TanSeptember 28, 2026

When walking away from an unfavourable bargain can cost you more: contractual risk, repudiation and damages in JKN v JKO [2026] SGSCT 23

In the context of a house renovation work for an HDB flat, the Small Claims Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in JKN v JKO [2026] SGSCT 23 (“JKN”) held that a party cannot simply pass losses arising from the risks it has assumed when the bargain becomes unprofitable (JKN at [35]).

Shehzadul HaqSeptember 21, 2026

WHEN AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE MAY NOT LET YOU ARBITRATE

In Far Ocean Sea Products Pte Ltd v United Overseas Insurance Limited [2026] SGHC 182, the Singapore High Court held that an arbitration clause applying to disputes over the amount payable became operative only after the insurer had admitted all aspects of liability.

Xian Ying TanSeptember 14, 2026

TAKING THE BULL BY THE HORNS: SINGAPORE HIGH COURT CLARIFIES THE SCOPE OF ABSOLUTE CONTRACTUAL DISCRETION

Recently, the Singapore High Court considered the scope of actual contractual discretion in the case of Shipworks Engineering Pte Ltd and another v Sembcorp Marine Integrated Yard Pte Ltd and another and another appeal [2026] SGHC(A) 22 (“Shipworks”).

Shehzadul HaqSeptember 7, 2026

WHEN THREATENING CONDUCT BECOMES A BREACH OF CONTRACT

The Supreme Court of Victoria’s decision in MacDonald & Co v Kharty [2026] VSC 336 shows where threatening conduct in a commercial relationship demonstrates an unwillingness to perform a fundamental contractual obligation, it may justify immediate termination.

Xian Ying TanAugust 31, 2026

Testing of Evidence does not Spell Bias: A Look at Hong Kong Court of First Instance's Decision in COB v FCD [2026] HKCFI 4162

When does robust questioning of an expert by an arbitral tribunal cross the line into bias?

Shehzadul HaqAugust 23, 2026

THINKING IN GOOD FAITH VS. ACTING IN GOOD FAITH – WHAT A DIRECTOR IS REQUIRED TO DO

In this short blog, we examine the UK Supreme Court's decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Francesco Costa [2026] UKSC 27 (the "Judgment"), which addressed whether a director is required to only think in good faith, or if a director is also required to act in good faith.

Xian Ying TanAugust 17, 2026

CERTIFIED, BUT NOT INDEPENDENT: REVISITING THE DUTIES OF A CERTIFIER IN BUILDING CONTRACTS

Recently, the Supreme Court of Victoria in Hale Cort Pty Ltd v Cheng Lam Ng and Anor [2026] VSC 492 (“Hale Corp”) considered the obligations of an architect when assessing a contractor’s claim for an extension of time and associated time costs.

Xian Ying TanAugust 11, 2026

WHEN CAN AN SO’S DETERMINATION UNDER THE PSSCOC GROUND A CALL ON A PERFORMANCE BOND?

In SH Design & Build Pte Ltd v Jurong Port Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 159, Lee Seiu Kin SJ restrained a call on a performance bond because the Superintending Officer ("SO") never rendered a valid decision under clause 35.1 of the PSSCOC within the mandatory 30-day deadline, so that the premise of the bond call was "false" (Judgment [39]).

Xian Ying TanAugust 3, 2026

News

In DWJ v DWK [2026] SGHC(I) 18 (“DWJ”), the Singapore International Commercial Court dismissed an application to set aside an arbitral award brought by a party which had chosen not to participate in the arbitration.