Amz v Axx
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 30 October 2015 |
| Date | 30 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | Originating Summons No [P] Vinodh Coomaraswamy J |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
9 cases
-
Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
...Soh Beng Tee at [86]). [emphasis in original] That statement has been applied to cases of breaches of arbitral procedure in AMZ v AXX [2016] 1 SLR 549 at [103]–[104] where it was stated at [105]: It is therefore for the party seeking to set aside the award on each of these grounds to show n......
-
Boi v Boj
...Pte Ltd [2013] 4 SLR 972 at [122]; JRP & Associates Pte Ltd v Kindly Construction & Services Pte Ltd [2015] 3 SLR 575 at [53]; AMZ v AXX [2016] 1 SLR 549 at [94]; TOW v TOV [2017] 3 SLR 725 (“TOW v TOV”) at [31]; Metropole Pte Ltd v Designshop Pte Ltd [2017] 4 SLR 277 at [47]; and UES Holdi......
-
Lao Holdings NV and another v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
...in not having had the opportunity to present this to the arbitrator ... . [emphasis in original in italics] That statement was applied in AMZ v AXX [2016] 1 SLR 549 (“AMZ”) at [103]–[104] where it was said at [105]: It is therefore for the party seeking to set aside the award on each of the......
-
Cgs v Cgt
...original]: L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd and another appeal [2013] 1 SLR 125 at [54], cited in AMZ v AXX [2016] 1 SLR 549 at [103]. That was not the case here. It is, in my view, fanciful and entirely speculative for the Claimant to say that if R had particip......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Arbitration
...failure to apply its mind to plaintiff's evidence 4.55 A rather peculiar situation, however, arose for consideration in AMZ v AXX[2016] 1 SLR 549 (‘AMZ v AXX’) (for confidentiality reasons, the parties were given fictitious names) where the tribunal dismissed the claim for repudiatory breac......