INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION 1/3LY
IN CONVERSATION WITH MICHAEL HWANG 29
IN CONVERS AT ION WI TH MI CHAEL HWANG SC CHIEF JUST I CE OF THE COURT S OF THE DUBA I INT ERNAT IONAL F INANCI AL CENTRE (DIFC ) Sapna Jhangiani, Legal Director at Clyde & Co LLP, in conversation with Michael Hwang SC, Independent Arbitrator and Barrister, Singapore, who is also Chief Justice of the Courts of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC)
T HE DE V EL OPMEN T OF A RB I T R AT I ON IN S ING A P ORE
as well as arbitrator; the senior counsel work took upmost of my time and arbitral appointments were an extra bonus. I actuallyworked onmore ICC cases than SIAC cases during the 1990s. The SIAC cases that I worked on tended not to be very large; however, towards the late 1990s we did see an increase in the number of SIAC arbitrations. I recall an interesting and very large SIAC arbitration I heard during that period. The governing lawwasMalaysian Lawand it was a dispute between aMalaysian party and a European party about a technology system that the Europeans supplied which theMalaysians rejected on the grounds of technical defects. Both parties apparently employed general counsel from the USwho drafted the relevant agreement, and they inserted the dispute resolution clause whichwas, inmy experience, rare if not unique. It provided that there would be full discovery and depositions pursuant to US laws of evidence and procedure. The parties were both represented by prominent American law firms, and the venue of the hearing wasmoved to New York. Depositions were taken and there were truckloads full of documents. It took three years for the case to come to a hearing, which took place in three tranches. Because of the extensive depositions and American style discoverywhich had taken place, counsel for theMalaysian partywas able to refer to videotaped depositions to contradict the Europeanwitnesses’ oral testimony, and to rely on internal emails between the European party’s engineers working on the project showing their doubts about the design of the technology system. The European party’s witnesses were subject to brutal cross-examination, resulting eventually in a settlement. TheMalaysian party’s lawyer toldme later that his cross examination, which led to the settlement, would have been impossible without full American style discovery and depositions. So theremay be amoral here somewhere.
S APNA As Chief Justice of the DIFC Courts, Head of the DIFC Dispute Resolution Authority, and a verywell-known Senior counsel and arbitrator, you are a highly regarded member of the international disputes community. Howdid your career in arbitration develop? MI CHAEL I served as a Judicial Commissioner in the Supreme Court of Singapore from1991 to 1992. Around this time the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) was established, with the International Arbitration Act being enacted in 1995. In light of this, when I returned to private practice in 1993, my firmsuggested that, givenmy judicial experience, I should explore the world of international arbitration. At the time we were able to learn (to a certain extent) from the experience of international arbitration in Hong Kong, given that it had already established the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) well before the opening of SIAC. When I retired frommy old firmat the end of 2002, I knew that I wanted to go on to developmy practice as an international arbitrator. S APNA As someone who has watched the development of international arbitration in Singapore, what do you perceive to be themain changes in arbitration practice from then to now? MI CHAEL During the 1990s the number of arbitrations that passed through the SIACwas very low. When I returned to private practice in 1993 I was working both as senior counsel
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker