Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Attorney Advertising

Secure Login

Alumni

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

Twitter

MoFo Twitter

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a first instance decision of the High Court, which had found an arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction over a dispute by, among other things, interpreting an agreement to ‘arbitration in Shanghai’ to mean agreement to Singapore-seated arbitration.

Singapore Court of Appeal Finds That ‘Arbitration in Shanghai’ Refers to Seat, Not Venue (BNA v BNB)

About Morrison Forester

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Arbitration analysis: The Singapore Court of Appeal considered an appeal of a first instance decision of the High Court, which had found an arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction over a dispute by, among other things, interpreting an agreement to ‘arbitration in Shanghai’ to mean agreement to Singapore-seated arbitration. On appeal, the Court of Appeal rejected the results-oriented reasoning of the High Court, finding that the parties had expressly agreed to Shanghai as the seat of arbitration. The court thus held that, as the seat of arbitration was Shanghai, any determination as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal fell under the supervisory jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) courts. Written by Sarah J Thomas, partner, and Daniel Steel, associate, at Morrison & Foerster.See the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/commercial/docfromresult/D-WA-A-V-V-MsSAYWZ-UUW-UZEYAAUUW-U-U-U-U-U-U-ACYCYEWYWW-ACYBVDBZWW-ZYYECAZCB-U-U/1/412012?lni=">full article</a> (subscription required).

Singapore Court of Appeal Finds That ‘Arbitration in Shanghai’ Refers to Seat, Not Venue (BNA v BNB)