mARCH 2012 22 Global Arbitration www.lawyer-monthly.com

ARBITRATION SINGAPORE

Arbitration differs around the world. Taking a look at the system in Singapore, Lawyer Monthly speaks to Richard Tan and Tan Chuan Thye from Singapore-based boutique law firm, Stamford Law. Here they discuss the common causes of dispute and their opinions on the recent Suzuki and VW dispute.

A little background information

Richard Tan is the current Chairman of the Singapore branch of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and a consultant in Stamford Law. A Chartered Arbitrator, Richard has been appointed as arbitrator in many international arbitrations including by the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, HKIAC and is on the panel of arbitrators of institutions such as the SIAC, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, BANI, KLRCA, HKIAC and others. Richard primarily sits as an arbitrator in the areas of engineering and construction, energy, oil and gas, commercial, joint ventures, international trade and investment, technology and media. Richard is a past president of the Singapore Institute of Arbitrators and an Adjunct Associate Professor at the National University of Singapore. He has been listed as a leading individual in international arbitration by many of the leading legal directories.

Tan Chuan Thye is a partner with the firm.

He advises and advocates in international arbitrations in a range of commercial, financial and infrastructure matters ranging from joint venture disputes to derivates agreements to oil and gas infrastructure projects. He has also begun to sit as an arbitrator on disputes covering a variety of subject matter.

Q

what are the common causes of disputes between businesses in your country, and across borders?

Disputes have existed as long as individuals have interacted. Economic pressures simply accentuate or accelerate disagreements. In S.E. Asia, individuals try to avoid confrontation and to manage disagreements. Formal proceedings are more common between a foreign party and a local party, than between two local parties.

Q

what, in your opinion, are the advantages of arbitration as a dispute resolution method, as opposed to court action?

Arbitration is effective on account of its flexibility, neutrality, finality, confidentiality and the enforceability of awards.

The flexibility inherent in the generally

used rules of arbitration allows parties time to resolve their differences or enable the parties to press efficiently for the determination of their differences. “Party autonomy” is in danger of becoming a mantra but the two words really stress that the process is about the disputants, and not some more intangible interest.

Neutrality and absence of court interference

is hugely important in some parts of the world. While arbitrators can sometimes get things wrong, and more established courts are tempted to correct the errors, the better view is probably that the courts should be supportive of the process of arbitration.

The subjects of confidentiality and

enforcement are widely written about, and it is correct that they should be. They give commercial men the confidence that they can disagree without the public prying into their dealings and that the outcome of the arbitration process can be realised and is not simply a piece of paper.

Q

The recent breakdown in relations between carmakers Suzuki and Volkswagen has recently pushed Suzuki to demand that Vw submit to arbitration as it attempts to force the company to sell a 20% stake it owns in the Japanese group. what are your opinions on this case?

It raises an interesting scenario – Suzuki now has a competitor as a significant minority shareholder. This brings with it the risks of competitive information being available to a