Search
Full bibliography 2,329 resources
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
Disclaimer: This summary was generated by AI based on the content of the source document.
-
<p>In the wake of the global Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a rise in creditorinitiated winding-up proceedings is likely to be impending in coming years (See e.g., RCMA Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Sun Electric Power Pte. Ltd. [2020] SGHC 205). At the same time, geopolitical developments, such as the scale and ambition of Belt & Road Initiative projects, have raised questions over the issue of debt sustainability. Given the prevalence of arbitration clauses in modern international commercial and project agreements, the interplay and relationship between insolvency and dispute resolution, and especially arbitration, requires careful attention. While the intersections between the arbitration and insolvency regimes are numerous and multi-faceted, (Jennifer Permesly et al. ‘IBA Toolkit on Insolvency and Arbitration’ International Bar Association (March 2021), www.ibanet.org/LPD/Dispute_Resolution_Section/ Arbitration/toolkit-arbitration-insolvency.aspx (accessed 18 April 2021) the impact of an arbitration clause on winding-up petitions has attracted recent case law. The English, Hong Kong, and Singapore courts have each taken differing approaches to the question of how to deal with winding-up petitions presented over disputed debts that are subject to an arbitration clause. On one end of the spectrum, the Hong Kong courts currently appear to prefer a relatively more creditor-friendly approach. On the other hand, the Singapore Court of Appeal recently laid down a relatively more debtor-friendly approach. Undertaking a comparative analysis of the approaches taken by different common law jurisdiction, this article argues that the Singapore Court of Appeal’s approach is preferable. However, at least for courts in United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law jurisdictions (or jurisdictions where the mandatory stay regime of the Model Law is adopted), they ought to find that a disputed debt subject to an arbitration clause falls within the scope of the mandatory stay regime under the Model Law. This article further suggests a possible way in which the approach of the Singapore Court of Appeal can be reconciled with the mandatory stay regime under Singapore’s enactment of the Model Law.<br></p>
-
Nova Chemicals Corporation v Dow Chemicals Company 2020 FCA 141 Stratas JA: Near JA / Woods JJA dissenting, aff’g 2017 FC 350 , 2017 FC 6...
Explore
Resource type
- Blog Post (6)
- Book (798)
- Book Section (225)
- Case (236)
- Conference Paper (5)
- Dictionary Entry (81)
- Document (2)
- Encyclopedia Article (2)
- Journal Article (947)
- Magazine Article (2)
- Newspaper Article (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Presentation (1)
- Report (16)
- Thesis (3)
- Web Page (1)
Topics
- Aboriginal law (4)
- Aboriginal peoples (2)
- Abuse of process (5)
- Access to information (1)
- Administrative law (11)
- Admissibility (1)
- Appeals (5)
- Arrest (2)
- Bankruptcy and insolvency (6)
- Banks (1)
- Canada (2)
- Charge to jury (2)
- Charter of Rights (31)
- Child and family services (1)
- Choice of forum (1)
- Civil liability (1)
- Civil procedure (4)
- Communications law (1)
- Constitutional law (50)
- Contracts (2)
- Copyright (8)
- Copyright Pentalogy (5)
- Costs (1)
- Court having jurisdiction (1)
- Courts (8)
- Criminal law (87)
- Crown law (1)
- Custody (4)
- Declaration of invalidity (1)
- Discoverability (1)
- Division of powers (4)
- Equity (1)
- Evidence (16)
- Expropriation (2)
- Extraterritoriality (1)
- Family law (7)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Financial institutions (1)
- Fitness to stand trial (1)
- Habeas corpus (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Immigration (3)
- Impaired driving (2)
- Income tax (4)
- Informer privilege (1)
- Infringement (2)
- Insurance (2)
- Intellectual property (8)
- Judicial review (5)
- Jurisdiction (5)
- Labour relations (1)
- Limitation of actions (1)
- Mediation (1)
- Negligence (1)
- Obligation of loyalty (1)
- Obstructing justice (1)
- Occupational health and safety (1)
- Open court principle (1)
- Patents (1)
- Prerogative writs (1)
- Prescription (1)
- Private international law (2)
- Property (1)
- Prosecutorial immunity (1)
- Provincial offences (1)
- Publication bans (1)
- Real property (1)
- Right to security of person (1)
- Sale of goods (1)
- Securities (2)
- Sentencing (9)
- Sex workers (1)
- Sexual assault (6)
- Status of persons (1)
- Statutes (1)
- Taxation (6)
- Telecommunications (1)
- Torts (1)
- Trafficking in persons (1)
- Transportation law (2)
- Treaty rights (1)
- Trial (5)
- Voyeurism (1)
- Young persons (2)
Publication year
-
Between 1700 and 1799
(8)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
- 1701 (1)
- Between 1760 and 1769 (4)
-
Between 1770 and 1779
(1)
- 1777 (1)
-
Between 1790 and 1799
(2)
- 1797 (2)
-
Between 1700 and 1709
(1)
-
Between 1800 and 1899
(14)
-
Between 1810 and 1819
(1)
- 1812 (1)
- Between 1820 and 1829 (2)
- Between 1830 and 1839 (2)
-
Between 1840 and 1849
(1)
- 1849 (1)
- Between 1870 and 1879 (2)
-
Between 1880 and 1889
(1)
- 1880 (1)
- Between 1890 and 1899 (5)
-
Between 1810 and 1819
(1)
-
Between 1900 and 1999
(466)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(2)
- 1908 (2)
- Between 1910 and 1919 (2)
- Between 1920 and 1929 (2)
- Between 1930 and 1939 (8)
- Between 1940 and 1949 (12)
- Between 1950 and 1959 (14)
- Between 1960 and 1969 (32)
- Between 1970 and 1979 (41)
- Between 1980 and 1989 (145)
- Between 1990 and 1999 (208)
-
Between 1900 and 1909
(2)
-
Between 2000 and 2026
(1,840)
- Between 2000 and 2009 (430)
- Between 2010 and 2019 (713)
- Between 2020 and 2026 (697)
- Unknown (1)