In Maniach Pte Ltd v L Capital Jones Ltd and another [2016] SGHC 65, the Singapore High Court held that the arbitration clause at hand was wide enough to cover minority oppression claims. However, it subsequently concluded that such claims were not arbitrable as a matter of public policy. First, because the full range of powers available to a court under Section 216 of the Companies Act to remedy minority oppression is not available to an arbitrator. Secondly, allowing such claims to be arbitrable could result in fragmentation of disputes/multiple dispute resolution forums. We will report in more detail shortly.

In General National Maritime Transport Co v STX France SA (22 April 2016) (unreported), the Commercial Court refused an application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. It rejected the claimant's contention that there had been a failure of due process as the tribunal had only seen a redacted document to determine the price of a ship. The court ruled that the tribunal in this case had dealt with the matter properly and not rushed its decision. The fact that the tribunal had dealt with the issue when making its award, albeit briefly, ruled out a challenge under section 68(2)(d).

In Vestey Group Limited v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID Case No. ARB/06/4), an ICSID tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to hear the claim. Applying Venezuelan and international law, it found that Venezuela breached Article 5 of the UK-Venezuela bilateral investment treaty (BIT) by illegally expropriating the claimant's cattle farming business in Venezuela. The expropriation was found to breach the due process requirements in the BIT and the tribunal noted that the nexus between the expropriation and public purpose was not obvious. Having found an illegal expropriation, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's other claims. The tribunal awarded the claimant about US$98 million together with semi-annually compounded interest. Venezuela was ordered to pay the entire costs of the ICSID arbitration, but each party was ordered to bear its own legal fees and expenses.

In a press release, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has announced the appointment of Ms Delphine Ho as Registrar of SIAC (with effect from 20 May 2016) and the promotion of its Deputy Registrar, Mr Kevin Nash, to Deputy Registrar and Centre Director (effective 1 May 2016).

In Mesa Power Group, LLC v Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. 2012-17, a NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal dismissed (by a majority) the claimant's claims for alleged arbitrary and discriminatory behaviour with regard to the regulation and production of renewable energy in Ontario. We will report further shortly.