Join us in our next webinar, titled “Seat Shopping: The Important Considerations in Choosing Your Seat” on Tuesday, 23^rd June 2020 at 5.00 p.m. MYT (GMT+8).

Having gained the widely popular moniker ‘midnight clause’, matters pertaining to the drafting of arbitration clauses and indeed, the determination of a seat, are often not thoroughly considered in the early stages of business transactions. A key significance in respect of a seat of arbitration is that it potentially creates an opportunity to parties to “shop” for a favourable decision for enforcement whereby one sees a party making applications to courts in various jurisdictions, until a favourable decision is achieved. Hence the term “seat” or “forum shopping”. Choosing a seat on this front, does however, bring with it its various considerations as each seat has specific requirements that must be met for enforcement.

In the Thai-Lao Lignite and Hongsa Lignite v Laos matter, although an award was issued in 2009, due to an appeal for an extension on Malaysia’s 90-day deadline for setting aside an award, the High Court of Malaysia only issued its decision to set aside the award in 2012. However, by 2012, the award had already witnessed enforcement by courts in London, Paris, and New York. Ultimately, the Federal Court of Malaysia upheld the setting aside and the London, Paris, and New York decisions were overturned. Additionally, jurists’ opinions have varied as to whether disputes on the ambiguity of the seat should be resolved according to sound commercial sense or based on the principle of caveat emptor i.e. that parties ought to have notice of their rights in the event of a dispute. This panel will discuss the concerns present in choosing a seat of arbitration and the appropriate recourse when there is ambiguity regarding the seat of the arbitration in a contract.

To register, please email: events@aiac.world.