Latest news with #NewYorkConvention
Borneo Post
02-08-2025
- Business
- Borneo Post
Expert determination in construction, engineering
Chin Shu Ying Construction and engineering projects are complex, multidisciplinary endeavours. Disputes are inevitable: over design intent, workmanship, delay analysis, quantum of variations, prolongation costs, defects causation, or the correct interpretation of technical specifications. While arbitration, adjudication (e.g., under Malaysia's CIPAA 2012), litigation and mediation are well known, Expert Determination (ED) remains comparatively under-used — despite being tailor-made for many of the technical and valuation questions that bedevil our projects. This article explains what ED is, how it differs from arbitration, adjudication and mediation, what its advantages and limitations are, when it is most appropriate, and why ED is especially relevant to construction and engineering. It then explores the roles — and opportunities — for consulting engineers, how consultants can maximise the value of ED, and what the future may hold for this nimble, expertise-driven dispute resolution process. What is Expert Determination? Expert Determination is a contractually agreed private process in which parties refer a defined issue (typically technical, valuation or quantum-focused) to an independent expert, whose decision is final and binding (unless the parties' agreement states otherwise, or provides limited rights of challenge). Key attributes: Party autonomy: ED exists because the parties agree to it — either in a dispute resolution clause in their contract or via a post-dispute submission agreement. Narrowly scoped: ED most often addresses specific, technical or valuation questions, not the entire dispute. For example, 'What is the reasonable cost of rectifying the slab deflection?' or 'What is the appropriate extension of time due to Variation X based on the critical path?'. Expert-driven process: The appointed expert is selected for subject-matter expertise, not for procedural or legal experience (though many experts have both). The expert may use their own knowledge and experience to reach a decision, often with less reliance on adversarial processes. Speed, privacy, and cost-effectiveness: ED is typically faster and cheaper than arbitration or litigation, and it is non-public. (Usually) limited rights of appeal: Courts and tribunals are reluctant to interfere with an ED unless there is fraud, collusion, a manifest error, or the expert has strayed beyond the scope of their mandate. How is ED different from Arbitration, Adjudication and Mediation? Although these processes all sit under the umbrella of Alternative (or, more accurately, Appropriate) Dispute Resolution, they differ fundamentally in purpose, process, formality, and enforceability. Arbitration Decision-maker: Arbitrator(s) appointed under an arbitration agreement. Nature: Formal, quasi-judicial. The arbitrator must base the award on submissions and evidence presented by parties. Outcome: Final and binding award, generally enforceable internationally under the New York Convention. Scope: Can address the entire dispute — both legal and technical. Appeal: Very limited (e.g., serious irregularity or questions of law depending on governing law). Adjudication Decision-maker: Adjudicator, often technically or legally trained. Nature: Statutory (for payment disputes in construction). Fast-track, 'pay now, argue later.' Outcome: Temporarily binding (unless challenged in arbitration/litigation) but enforceable summarily. Scope: Commonly payment disputes; can involve technical issues but limited timeframe and process. Appeal: Parties can later reopen the issues in arbitration/litigation. Mediation Decision-maker: None. The mediator facilitates agreement; does not impose a decision. Nature: Consensual, interest-based negotiation with the assistance of a neutral. Outcome: Settlement agreement (if reached). Non-binding unless documented as a contract/consent award. Appeal: Not applicable — there is no imposed decision to appeal. Expert Determination Decision-maker: Subject-matter expert. Nature: Informal, non-judicial. The expert may use their own expertise (unlike arbitrators who cannot). Outcome: Typically final and binding on the specific issue(s) referred, enforceable as a matter of contract. Scope: Usually narrow, technical, or valuation issues. Appeal: Usually no appeal on merits — only limited grounds like manifest error or jurisdictional exceedance. The Key Benefits & Advantages of Expert Determination 1. Technical competence at the core The decision-maker is an expert in the very subject in dispute — structural engineering, geotechnics, M&E systems, delay analysis, quantum, etc. — which increases confidence in the substantive correctness of the determination. 2. Speed ED can often be concluded in weeks or a few months, compared to the many months or years that arbitration or litigation can take. 3. Cost-effectiveness Reduced procedure, fewer hearings (often none), targeted submissions, and a single expert mean lower cost. 4. Flexibility The parties can customise the process (e.g., single round of submissions, expert site inspection, desktop review of records, limited expert meetings) to suit the complexity and urgency of the issue. 5. Confidentiality Proceedings and outcomes are typically private. 6. Issue-framing By carving out technical/valuation issues for ED, the parties may streamline the larger dispute or even resolve it entirely once the pivotal issue is settled. 7. Relationship preservation Less adversarial than arbitration or litigation, ED allows professionals to 'speak the same language' and can de-escalate conflict. 8. Procedural simplicity No need for complex pleadings, procedural orders, or extensive disclosure — unless parties desire it. Limitations of Expert Determination Enforceability vs Arbitration Awards 1. An expert determination is contractually binding, not an 'award.' If a party refuses to comply, the other party may need to sue for breach of contract or seek summary judgment — slower and more uncertain than enforcing an arbitral award internationally. 2. Limited appeal/review The finality that makes ED attractive also poses a risk. If the expert gets it wrong (without manifest error), you may have little recourse. Scope creep risk 3. Poorly drafted clauses or terms of reference can lead to arguments over the expert's jurisdiction or whether the expert exceeded their mandate. 4. Due process and natural justice issues Because ED is flexible and informal, parties might later allege they were not given a fair chance to present their case. The terms of appointment should guard against this risk by setting minimum procedural fairness expectations. 5. Not suitable for complex multi-issue legal disputes ED is not designed to resolve wide-ranging disputes rooted in legal interpretation, fraud, or extensive witness credibility assessments. 6. Dependence on the quality of the expert The outcome is only as good as the expert's competence, independence, and rigour. A poorly chosen expert undermines the process. When is ED Appropriate? (Typical Use Cases) Technical causation: 'Did differential settlement arise from design, construction method, or ground conditions?' Delay and disruption analysis: 'What is the EOT entitlement attributable to Event X, based on the critical path?' Valuation/quantum: Variations, prolongation costs, measured work, rates for new items, or final accounts. Defects & remedial methodology: 'What is the technically and economically appropriate rectification method and cost?' Performance & specification compliance: Whether equipment meets specified performance criteria. Professional standard of care: Whether a design or supervision decision met the industry standard (often alongside legal proceedings, but the technical determination can be isolated). Energy, oil & gas, utilities disputes: Metering, take-or-pay calculations, throughput or tariff determinations. In general, if the question is primarily technical or valuation-focused — and the parties want a fast, binding answer — ED is a strong candidate. Why ED is Especially Relevant in Construction & Engineering 1. Construction disputes are heavily technical Court or tribunal time (and legal cost) is often consumed explaining technicalities to non-technical decision-makers. ED shortcuts that by placing the decision in expert hands from the outset. 2. Document-heavy but pattern-driven disputes Experts can interpret drawings, schedules, method statements, testing data and progress records efficiently, without formal evidential wrangling. 3. Frequent need for quick, decisive answers Projects need immediate clarity (e.g., to proceed with a variation or adopt a remedial method). ED delivers 'commercial certainty' quickly. 4. Complementarity with other processes ED can be embedded in tiered dispute resolution clauses: e.g., project-level negotiation → ED on specified technical/quantum issues → arbitration/litigation for residual legal issues. 5. Supports collaborative contracting models In alliancing/IPD or NEC-style contracts where early resolution is prized, ED helps defuse delays and keeps teams moving. The Roles of Consulting Engineers in ED Consulting engineers can participate in ED in several, often overlapping, capacities: 1. As the appointed Expert Determiner Where independence, neutrality, and deep technical credibility are required. Requires strong analytical, writing, and case management skills. Must understand procedural fairness, conflicts of interest, and the limits of the mandate. 2. As party-appointed technical advisor/expert Assisting counsel to prepare the technical case, submissions, and supporting analysis. Explaining complex engineering principles clearly and persuasively. Preparing expert reports directed at the ED process. 3. As contract drafters or advisors Advising clients when and how to include ED clauses. Helping frame precise terms of reference to avoid jurisdictional disputes. 4. As project managers or resident engineers Proactively documenting events, contemporaneous records, and project data to make ED fast and evidence-rich. Recommending ED at the right time to contain a dispute before it metastasizes. Why ED Empowers Consultants Leverages core competence: ED places technical reasoning front and centre, giving engineers a decision-making role aligned with their core strengths. Professional leadership: By championing ED, consultants demonstrate proactive dispute leadership — not merely reacting to legal processes. Commercial relevance: Engineers who can help clients resolve disputes faster and cheaper add measurable commercial value. Enhanced credibility: Serving as an independent expert determiner elevates professional standing and enhances the public perception of engineers as trusted decision-makers. Knowledge translation: Engineers are uniquely positioned to translate complex data into determinations that are both technically sound and practically implementable. How Consultants Can Maximise ED A. Drafting & Contract Strategy 1. Embed clear ED clauses Define which disputes must go to ED (e.g., valuations, technical compliance) and which go to adjudication/arbitration. Clarify binding effect, scope, procedural rules, and limited grounds of challenge. Provide for the method of expert appointment (e.g., via a nominating body) and replacement if conflict arises. 2. Define the expert's mandate carefully Specific questions, timeframe, powers (e.g., ability to conduct site visits, request tests, use own knowledge), and confidentiality. 3. Integrate ED in tiered dispute systems Example: 'Negotiation → ED (technical/quantum) → Arbitration (residual legal issues).' B. Process Design & Preparation 4. Keep it focused Avoid broad issues creeping into ED. Narrow, well-posed questions lead to fast, decisive outcomes. 5. High-quality technical submissions Engineers should present data in decision-ready formats: clear methodologies, counterfactuals, as-built vs as-planned analyses, etc. 6. Evidence discipline Ensure contemporaneous project records (programmes, site diaries, test results, correspondence) are maintained so ED is not bogged down by missing information. 7. Use agreed bundles or joint statements Where appropriate, competing experts can produce joint reports narrowing issues — this aids the ED and reduces cost. C. Professional Development & Governance 8. Training in ED procedure Engineers intending to act as determiners should understand the basics of procedural fairness, natural justice, conflicts, and drafting reasoned determinations. 9. Institutional frameworks ACEM (and allied institutions) could develop panels of expert determiners, rules, and model clauses to mainstream ED. 10. Ethical and conflict management Establish transparent conflict checks and independence declarations to protect credibility. The Future of ED in Construction 1. Normalisation in Standard Forms Expect to see bespoke ED clauses proliferate in main contracts, subcontracts, and consultancy agreements, especially for valuation, EOT and technical compliance issues. Institutions (engineering and legal) may publish model ED rules to encourage uptake. 2. Digital & data-heavy ED As projects digitise (BIM, CDEs, 4D schedules, IoT sensors), ED will become even more effective: data-rich determinations can be made quickly with robust visualisations and analytics. 3. Hybrid processes Parties may agree to ED with a right of limited arbitration appeal on specific discrete questions of law or manifest error — balancing finality with fairness. 4. Pre-emptive technical boards Similar to Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Boards, standing technical experts could be empowered to make rapid expert determinations during the project, preventing minor issues from escalating. 5. Greater cross-border recognition via contracts While ED decisions lack the international enforceability of arbitral awards, contract drafting can tighten compliance (e.g., clauses making ED a condition precedent to payment or certification), creating strong commercial incentives to comply. 6. Capacity-building for engineers Professional bodies will likely certify and train engineers specifically for ED roles, standardising best practices, decision formats, and ethical safeguards. 7. Integration with collaborative delivery models As alliancing and NEC-style contracts spread, ED's agility fits well with the 'resolve fast, keep building' ethos, reducing transactional frictions and protecting project deadlines. Conclusion Expert Determination is not a panacea, nor is it a replacement for arbitration, adjudication or mediation. But for narrowly defined technical or valuation disputes, it is often the fastest, most cost-effective and expertise-aligned way to obtain a binding decision. In construction and engineering, where disputes frequently turn on engineering judgment, programming logic, or quantum, ED is a natural fit. For consulting engineers, ED is more than a dispute resolution tool — it is a platform for professional leadership. By helping clients craft smart ED clauses, serving credibly as determiners or technical advisors, and embedding ED into project governance, engineers can save time and money, reduce adversarial heat, and keep projects moving. The challenge — and opportunity — for our profession is to institutionalise ED: to build panels, publish rules, train experts, and educate industry stakeholders. If we do, ED will evolve from a niche option into a mainstream mechanism — one that empowers consultants, supports fair outcomes, and future-proofs dispute resolution in our sector. Previous Article The rubber story: Sap, sweat and second chances
Time Business News
09-07-2025
- Business
- Time Business News
Understanding Cross-Border Debt Collection Laws in the EU and Beyond
In today's global economy, cross-border trade is a vital component of B2B commerce. Yet with this opportunity comes significant legal complexity, especially when payments go unpaid. The process of collecting a business debt across jurisdictions is rarely straightforward, as legal systems, enforcement mechanisms, and procedures vary widely. Within the European Union (EU), some legal harmonization exists, but beyond its borders, debt recovery often becomes a strategic and legal maze. The EU Framework: Harmonization with National Variations The European Union has made considerable progress in streamlining civil and commercial debt recovery processes. Instruments such as the European Payment Order (EPO), European Small Claims Procedure, and Brussels I Regulation (recast) provide a unified structure for cross-border enforcement. Creditors can obtain enforceable titles across EU member states without initiating new lawsuits in each country, reducing costs and delays. However, national laws still apply in areas such as interest rates on late payments, procedural time limits, and enforcement fees. A creditor pursuing debt in France or Poland, for example, must still navigate local practices when executing a judgment. This duality—European-level instruments supported by national legal nuances—requires a combination of legal knowledge and practical coordination. Beyond the EU: Divergence and Complexity Outside the EU, things become more fragmented. While multilateral treaties like the New York Convention aid in enforcing arbitral awards, there is no equivalent universal mechanism for enforcing foreign court judgments. Countries such as the U.S., China, and the UAE follow distinct rules on jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement. This legal divergence poses major challenges for creditors working with clients or suppliers in emerging markets. Debt collection in these jurisdictions often requires legal proceedings from scratch, translation of documents, engagement of local counsel, and attention to cultural or political nuances in the business environment. The Role of Bilateral Agreements and Treaties Where multilateral solutions fall short, bilateral treaties between countries can sometimes ease debt recovery. These agreements typically address judicial cooperation, mutual recognition of judgments, and asset recovery support. However, they are not always active or comprehensive, and their interpretation may vary by local courts. Businesses operating internationally should proactively assess whether any treaties exist between their home country and that of their debtor. This research should be part of initial credit risk assessments, not a last resort after default. Arbitration and Mediation as Alternative Paths Given the inconsistencies in national court systems, many international companies favor arbitration or structured mediation. Arbitration awards are widely enforceable under the New York Convention, providing more predictability. Additionally, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods are often faster and less confrontational, which is important for maintaining long-term trade relationships. However, to leverage arbitration effectively, companies must ensure the original contract includes a valid arbitration clause, drafted in compliance with both parties' legal frameworks. Practical Strategies for Cross-Border Collection Navigating multiple legal systems requires not just legal expertise, but also strategic planning. Businesses should standardize contract terms to include governing law, dispute resolution methods, and late payment penalties. It's also crucial to perform due diligence on clients' legal environments and credit history before extending trade credit. Partnering with specialized international debt recovery agencies can help bridge the enforcement gap. These firms combine legal insight with local knowledge and multilingual capacity—crucial in avoiding missteps that delay or derail recovery efforts. Understanding the legal landscape of cross-border debt collection is a competitive necessity in global B2B trade. Within the EU, harmonized tools ease enforcement, though national practices still apply. Beyond the EU, recovery processes are more fragmented, requiring tailored legal and strategic approaches. Whether through European orders, bilateral treaties, or arbitration mechanisms, success depends on preparation, contract clarity, and local legal partnerships. Businesses that invest in cross-border legal awareness are better positioned to protect cash flow and sustain global operations. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Time Business News
03-07-2025
- Business
- Time Business News
Managing International Payment Enforcements A Comprehensive Guide
In today's global economy, cross-border transactions are essential to the operations of countless businesses. However, as companies expand beyond their national borders, the complexities surrounding managing international payment enforcement become increasingly significant. Ensuring that payments are made promptly and disputes are resolved efficiently is critical to maintaining healthy business relationships and sustaining international trade. One of the foremost difficulties in managing international payments is navigating the regulatory and legal differences between countries. Each jurisdiction has its own contract laws, enforcement protocols, and dispute resolution frameworks. This can create confusion and slow down the payment collection process, especially when dealing with unfamiliar or less developed legal systems. When disputes arise over unpaid invoices or contract breaches, knowing which jurisdiction has the authority to hear the case is crucial. Jurisdiction can depend on contract terms, the domicile of the involved parties, or the location where the contract was executed. Misunderstanding these nuances can lead to costly legal battles and ineffective enforcement. Well-drafted international contracts are the backbone of enforceable cross-border payments. These agreements should clearly specify payment terms, dispute resolution mechanisms, governing law, and enforcement clauses. Clarity in contract language can significantly reduce misunderstandings and lay the groundwork for effective enforcement. Dispute resolution outside traditional courts, such as arbitration and mediation, is often preferred in international payment conflicts. These methods offer faster resolutions, more privacy, and greater flexibility. Arbitration, in particular, is recognized across borders under international treaties like the New York Convention, making its awards easier to enforce globally. The New York Convention of 1958 is a cornerstone for enforcing international arbitration awards. It provides a framework that requires member states to recognize and enforce arbitral decisions made in other member countries. This treaty offers businesses confidence that an arbitration award can be enforced even if the debtor is located overseas. Enforcing a judgment in a foreign country involves a process called recognition and enforcement. Not all countries readily recognize foreign court judgments, particularly if there is no reciprocal treaty in place. The process can be time-consuming and costly, requiring legal assistance in the debtor's country. To reduce the risk of non-payment, many businesses use financial instruments like letters of credit or bank guarantees. These tools involve third-party banks that promise payment upon delivery of agreed-upon documents or conditions. They provide security and predictability, especially in high-risk or unfamiliar markets. Modern technology has revolutionized how international payments are made and monitored. Online platforms, blockchain technology, and real-time tracking systems have increased transparency and reduced delays. Digital tools also make it easier to document transactions, which can be critical during enforcement actions. Companies engaged in global trade must implement robust compliance and monitoring systems to detect irregularities and avoid violations of international sanctions or anti-money laundering regulations. These systems help ensure that international payments are not only timely but also legally compliant. Trade credit insurance is another layer of protection for exporters. It covers the risk of non-payment due to customer insolvency, political upheaval, or other commercial issues. Insurers may also assist in debt recovery efforts and enforcement actions, offering both financial and logistical support. When dealing with international enforcement, having local legal counsel can make a significant difference. Lawyers who understand the domestic laws of the debtor's country can navigate the enforcement landscape more efficiently and increase the likelihood of a successful outcome. Certain contractual clauses can strengthen a company's ability to enforce payments. These include forum selection clauses, choice-of-law clauses, and escalation clauses that detail the steps to be taken in case of disputes. Carefully negotiating and drafting these terms is a proactive approach to managing enforcement risks. Cultural misunderstandings and language barriers can complicate international transactions and enforcement. Misinterpretations of intent or contractual obligations can escalate disputes unnecessarily. Being culturally sensitive and employing accurate translation services can mitigate such issues. Fluctuations in currency values can affect payment amounts and enforcement strategies. Hedging tools like forward contracts or currency swaps help manage this risk, ensuring that the value of a payment remains stable despite market changes. Meticulous record-keeping is essential in any enforcement process. From initial contracts to emails, invoices, and proof of delivery, comprehensive documentation strengthens the case if legal or arbitration proceedings become necessary. It also demonstrates good faith and transparency. Before entering into international agreements, conducting thorough due diligence on prospective partners helps identify potential risks early. Reviewing credit histories, business practices, and legal backgrounds reduces the likelihood of payment disputes and enforcement challenges. Managing international payment enforcements is a multifaceted endeavor that requires strategic planning, legal foresight, and robust systems. By understanding jurisdictional complexities, leveraging contractual tools, and embracing modern technology, businesses can significantly reduce the risks of non-payment. Effective enforcement is not just about legal action; it's about proactive risk management, relationship building, and choosing the right partners and tools. With a well-rounded approach, businesses can confidently navigate the intricate world of international payments and build a solid foundation for global growth. Read More: internet chicks TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Web Release
26-05-2025
- Business
- Web Release
Closing of the first edition of Beirut Arbitration Days: Professor Najib Hage-Chahine's Ten Recommendations to Cement Beirut as the Regional Capital of Arbitration
Closing of the first edition of Beirut Arbitration Days: Professor Najib Hage-Chahine's Ten Recommendations to Cement Beirut as the Regional Capital of Arbitration In the presence of the President of the Beirut Bar Association, Mr. Fadi Masri, and at the initiative of the event's creator, Professor Najib Hage-Chahine, the first edition of 'Beirut Arbitration Days' concluded on 22 May 2025 after attracting more than 1,000 participants from 40 countries, 60 international speakers and 40 supporting organizations. Prime Minister Judge Nawaf Salam opened the conference, confirming Lebanon's ability 'to regain its regional and international role in arbitration.' Both Minister of Justice Judge Adel Nassar and Minister of Information Dr. Paul Morcos affirmed the government's support for spreading the culture of arbitration, while the President of the Bar Association stressed the Bar's commitment to consolidating this course. The Ten Recommendations of Professor Najib Hage-Chahine In the closing session, Professor Najib Hage-Chahine presented ten practical recommendations: Lawyers: Insert an arbitration clause in contracts and choose Beirut as the seat. Judiciary: Support the independence of arbitrators and accelerate annulment and enforcement proceedings. Legislators: Update the Arbitration Law to align with the New York Convention and international standards. Government: Integrate arbitration into investment-attraction policies and develop specialized digital infrastructure. Arbitrators: Commit to the highest levels of transparency, ethics, and continuous training. Experts: Adopt precise scientific models in the assessment of damages and act as support to arbitral tribunals, not as a party in the dispute. Arbitration centers: Strengthen regional cooperation and embrace technology and diversity. Universities: Integrate arbitration into curricula and provide practical training for students. Students and youth: Engage in moot courts and fellowship programs. Bar Association: Entrench LIAC-BBA as a strategic arm for independent arbitration. The event concluded with Professor Hage-Chahine affirming that 'Beirut has returned as the capital of Arab arbitration' and inviting participants to the next edition, 'Beirut Arbitration Days 2026,' under the slogan Beirut Nutrix Legum.
Singapore Law Watch
23-05-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
Singapore's alternative dispute resolution ecosystem must evolve to stay relevant: Murali
Singapore's alternative dispute resolution ecosystem must evolve to stay relevant: Murali Source: Straits Times Article Date: 23 May 2025 Author: Zaihan Mohamed Yusof This will ensure businesses have certainty amid a volatile world, says Minister of State for Law and Transport Murali Pillai. Hubs for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) must evolve to deliver certainty and the rule of law for businesses amid the volatile global landscape. In a speech on May 22 to about 200 delegates at the Alternative Dispute Resolution Conference, Minister of State for Law and Transport Murali Pillai said Singapore aims to navigate the complex and dynamic global environment in three ways – upholding the rule of law, innovation and creating partnerships. On the rule of law, Mr Murali said Singapore is a strong proponent of multilateralism, noting that the Republic had signed and ratified a number of key international conventions, including the New York Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Singapore Convention on Mediation. He said these instruments enhance the enforceability of arbitral awards, court judgments and mediated settlement agreements across borders. Mr Murali highlighted the most recent addition – the Singapore Convention on Mediation, which currently has 18 parties and 57 signatories, including many countries from Asean and Asia. 'We hope that more countries will sign and ratify the convention, allowing mediation to become a truly effective and trusted means for resolving cross-border disputes – complementing arbitration as a key pillar of international dispute resolution,' he said. Speaking at the conference, held at the Pan Pacific Singapore and jointly organised by the Law Society of Singapore and LawAsia (The Law Association for Asia and the Pacific), Mr Murali said that Singapore must consistently innovate, improve and create better ways to meet global needs. He said changes were made to introduce a framework for fee agreements to align the ADR landscape in Singapore with practices and developments on the international front. Singapore has also embraced technology, with the Singapore International Mediation Centre offering the use of the Mediation Artificial Intelligence Assistant. The tool allows users to quickly make sense of large volumes of information, including generating a chronology of events, outlining the roles of individuals, providing a table of common positions and differences between parties, and summarising the documents and data provided by parties. Mr Murali said Singapore recognises that it cannot operate in isolation because of the international nature of the disputes. At the government-to-government level, he noted that the Ministry of Law has signed memorandums of understanding with counterparts around the world. ADR institutions here have also collaborated with foreign ADR institutions, trade bodies, bar associations, hearing centres and law schools to exchange knowledge and best practices. Mr Murali said ADR institutions in Singapore have an international board, court and panel from both common law and civil law jurisdictions. 'Just as Singapore is integrated into the global trading system, our ADR ecosystem must also be globally connected. 'To this end, we have liberalised our dispute resolution regime,' he added, noting that parties can appoint counsel, arbitrators and mediators of any nationality. In his speech, Mr Murali said he is optimistic that globalisation is here to stay, though in a different form, with new ties forged between like-minded jurisdictions. He said he was especially confident about the future of Asia, noting that three of the top five largest economies in the world are in Asia – China, Japan and India. 'Asean, as a collective bloc, is around the same size as India. This region is dynamic and full of promise. The Asia-Pacific is home to over 60 per cent of the world's youth aged 15 to 24, representing not only a significant source of talent but also a growing base of consumers. 'With an expanding middle class and increasing urbanisation, we are witnessing a surge in infrastructure development and economic activity. And where business thrives, so too does demand for legal and dispute resolution services. There is room for all of us to benefit from this growth,' he added. Legal experts speaking to The Straits Times on the sidelines of the event said new trends are emerging in the ADR environment. One of the delegates at the conference, Mr See Chern Yang, director of dispute resolution at Drew & Napier, told ST: 'We are starting to see more commercial disputes, especially now... cross-border, commercial disputes between two parties of different countries getting through the mediation system. 'We are also starting to see a trend of what we call pre-commencement mediation, which means even before the case is found in the court, before litigation commences, parties with their lawyers collectively decide, 'let's mediate'.' Parties from around the world have chosen Singapore as the dispute resolution forum, even when the dispute has no direct connection with Singapore. In the latest Queen Mary University of London and White & Case's International Arbitration Survey, Singapore continues to rank among the top four most preferred seats of arbitration across all regions, including Africa and Latin America. The Singapore International Arbitration Centre has received cases from parties in 110 jurisdictions. Mr Shyam Divan, president of LawAsia, said ADR can bring cost savings and more efficiency to feuding parties. In international trade disruptions, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, parties may find themselves having a problem that needs to be solved quickly. Mr Divan told ST: 'So in situations like that, I think ADR, without having to go through the court system, is much more efficient – either through the arbitration or the mediation route – in trying to have a solution that is acceptable to two sides.' He added that he sees mediated settlements gaining popularity. Mr Murali, who will be appointed Senior Minister of State for Law and Transport on May 23, told ST about his new role of 'being a team player in the team captained by Prime Minister Lawrence Wong'. 'The goal is simple but difficult – to win the match to secure our country's future at local, national and international levels,' he said. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
