Award enforcement in Hong Kong and Singapore, and hurdles in the arbitration process

Does enforcement of awards take two to tango? This interactive session will dissect the latest Hong Kong and Singapore decisions on award challenges; and also discuss common challenges that parties encounter during the arbitration process.

The popularity of international arbitration is commonly attributed to the finality and ease of enforcing awards worldwide. But Hong Kong and Singapore - Asia's most popular seats are seeing an increase in award challenges on increasingly creative grounds. Finality, it is often said, is only appreciated by one side. This interactive session will discuss and dissect the latest decisions such as The Republic of India v Deutsche Telekom AG, BZW v BZV, and others [Singapore] and C v. D (2023) [Hong Kong]; and what they mean for parties who encounter similar hurdles in the arbitration process - which may have potential knock-on consequences on the validity and enforceability of an arbitral award. 

The arbitration procedure itself is not without its challenges - how do you deal with these inherent challenges? For example, issues arise such as a delinquent or absent opponent that disregards norms of document disclosure; new and unpleaded issues on the eve of, during or after the evidentiary hearing; breaches of confidentiality and other guerilla tactics and more. Do these procedural "hiccups" even matter, at the end of the day, in this era of "minimal curial intervention"?