SIAC Arbitration Training Video - 11 Hearing on Jurisdiction - Deliberations of Tribunal

Summary

In a deliberation session, the panel discusses complex legal issues surrounding corruption and arbitration agreements. They dissect the involvement of a claimant in alleged bribery, considering the implications of modern anti-bribery legislation. The conversation reveals differing interpretations of jurisdiction and admissibility in light of existing authorities. They reach a consensus on maintaining jurisdiction while highlighting the need for a higher standard of proof regarding allegations of fraud. The tribunal emphasizes the value of external scrutiny in their decision-making process. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects the intricate balance of law and ethics in international commerce.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The discussion revolves around complex legal issues related to corruption and arbitration agreements.
• ⚖️ The first key issue is whether corruption can invalidate an arbitration agreement.
• 💰 The second issue focuses on the factual involvement of claimants in any bribery activities.
• 🔍 There is uncertainty regarding the claimants' involvement in bribery, suggesting possible implied authority.
• 📜 Modern anti-bribery legislation mandates high standards of diligence for companies involved in international commerce.
• 👀 The lack of evidence that claimants took steps to ensure ethical conduct raises concerns.
• 📚 Previous authorities cited may not decisively apply to the current case's jurisdictional issues.
• 🚦 The consensus is leaning towards viewing the bribery allegation as a matter of admissibility rather than jurisdiction.
• 📈 A higher standard of proof is necessary due to the fraud allegations presented in the case.
• 📅 The decision will be drafted and shared for input, with an aim to finalize within the next fortnight.

Q & A

What were the main legal issues discussed in the meeting?

The main legal issues discussed were the validity of the arbitration agreement in light of alleged corruption and the involvement of the claimants in bribery payments.

How did the participants categorize the legal issues?

The participants categorized the legal issues into two parts: a regal issue regarding corruption's effect on the arbitration agreement and a factual issue concerning the claimants' involvement in alleged bribery.

What concerns did the participants express regarding the claimant's actions?

Participants were concerned that the claimant may have turned a blind eye to the middleman's potential bribery, indicating a lack of proactive measures to ensure ethical conduct.

What principle did the participants discuss regarding jurisdiction and admissibility?

They discussed the distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility, suggesting that issues of bribery could be raised as a defense on merits rather than blocking jurisdiction entirely.

What was the consensus reached by the participants regarding jurisdiction?

The consensus was to rule that they do have jurisdiction over the case, despite the allegations of fraud requiring a higher standard of proof.

Why did the participants emphasize the need for a higher standard of proof?

They emphasized a higher standard of proof due to the serious nature of the fraud allegations, which necessitates more rigorous evidence compared to typical civil cases.

What decision did the participants agree upon regarding the next steps?

The participants agreed to prepare a draft decision and finalize it within the next fortnight, while also seeking input from the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) for scrutiny.

What did the discussion reveal about the role of the SIAC?

The discussion highlighted the valuable role of the SIAC in providing scrutiny and assistance to ensure the integrity of the tribunal's decision-making process.

How did the participants react to the legal authorities cited during the meeting?

They found the legal authorities cited to be persuasive but not decisive, indicating uncertainty about their applicability to the current case.

What overall impression did the participants convey about the case?

The participants conveyed that while the case involves complex issues of law and serious allegations, the evidence presented so far is insufficient to definitively prove corruption or fraud.