Huge Growth In Singapore Arbitration – Hong Kong Noticeable By Abscence

Interesting article in yesterday’s Australian about the rapid growth of arbitration services in Singapore.


As most of our readers will know? two years ago, Australian lawyer Michael Pryles took control of the organisation in Singapore that is widely seen as this Australia’s great rival in the world of arbitration.

The report reveals that? As chairman of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Dr Pryles has presided over a period of phenomenal growth.

Read the rest of the report below and you’ll see that Hong Kong doesn’t even rate a mention. Recently a AALE mole met with the HK? Arbitration Centre and by all accounts they are still unaware that? Singapore and Australia are busily taking business away from them.

Part of the reason it appears is the conservative nature of these types of organisations in Hong Kong and the fact that they are still fairly inured from the reality of the new arbitration market because of HK’s belief (and this applies to HK across the board) that proximity to the mainland will solve all future problems.

We beg to differ.

Here’s the full report and url

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/aussie-at-the-helm-as-arbitration-takes-off/story-e6frg97x-1226035635455

Changes that have been put in place since he became chairman have given SIAC an international board and a marketing focus that looks beyond Asia to the world.

The number of new matters referred to the centre has doubled and almost half of those cases came from other countries.

Before taking up his current role, Dr Pryles had been president of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration. But, like SIAC, Dr Pryles has now gone global. He practices as an arbitrator, has chambers in London and accepts appointments from law firms in London, the US and Asia.

“But not from Australian firms — or rarely from Australian firms,” he told The Australian.

“They tend to go for retired judges, a number of whom have no knowledge or experience of international arbitration — which is very different to domestic arbitration.”

When Dr Pryles took up the chairmanship of SIAC, the goal had been to move the organisation to the first tier of international arbitration centres.

It has new premises in Maxwell Chambers, a building that also hosts the Singapore office of the International Chamber of Commerce, an office of the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the American Arbitration Association.

Maxwell Chambers also has four restaurants, a gymnasium and 20 arbitration rooms.

Dr Pryles said most of SIAC’s new board consisted of non-Singaporeans, which had helped foster a new global outlook.

“As a result, a lot of decisions were taken to expand and rebrand — and that has been very successful,” he said.

In 2009, the centre had a 61 per cent increase in its caseload and last year the number of new arbitrations grew by a further 24 per cent.

Of last year’s 198 arbitrations, 107 were from Singapore, followed by 36 from India, 26 from Hong Kong, 22 from Indonesia, 14 from China and the rest from a total of 40 other jurisdictions.

Some arbitrations involved parties from France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Britain, Switzerland, the US and the Gulf states.

SIAC also dealt with six Australian arbitrations.

Dr Pryles explains the global spread of the centre’s clients by pointing to the fact Singapore, in his view, has every advantage that an international arbitration centre could need. “Everyone is aware of the . . . economic growth of Asia and services follow commerce — whether they are financial services, legal services or dispute resolution services,” he said.

“It is not surprising at all that the number of international arbitrations in Asia is increasingly quite nicely. It’s due to the economic development of the region.”

As well as geographic advantages, he said Singapore had “the right laws” and a competent and impartial judiciary that was very knowledgeable of international arbitration.

He said Singapore was also benefiting from what he described as an unjustified fear among some US corporations that the government of China might interfere in arbitrations conducted in Hong Kong.

For most of its history, SIAC had viewed its target market as the Singapore region. But after the board changes of two years ago, it had been appointing arbitrators from all over the world.

“Last year, we appointed people from 16 different countries — and these are appointments we made as opposed to the parties.”

Under the Singapore International Arbitration Act — and SIAC’s rules — Dr Pryles makes all of those appointments.

Last month, ACICA was given equivalent powers in Australia. The federal government decided that when parties to commercial disputes have not agreed on who should arbitrate their disputes, that decision should fall to ACICA. That move cut the need for the parties to commence legal proceedings in order to have an arbitrator appointed under the Australian International Arbitration Act.

Dr Pryles said it was very common to find London silks appearing in Singapore arbitrations and there was an opportunity for Australian lawyers to do the same