Myanmar

In the 2016 edition of The Asia-Pacific Arbitration Review, the Myanmar chapter explored the country’s arbitration landscape by looking at the key provisions in the Arbitration Act 1944 and considering potential developments in view of the draft Arbitration Bill, as well as the Myanmar Investment Law.

The draft Arbitration Bill has since passed into law. On January 2016, Myanmar’s parliament enacted the long-­anticipated Arbitration Law 2016 following its accession to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards 1958 (New York Convention) in 2013. The Arbitration Act 1944 was concomitantly repealed.1 Unlike the Arbitration Act 1944, which was based on the Indian Arbitration Act 1940, the Arbitration Law 2016 largely tracks the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 (Model Law), bringing Myanmar’s antiquated arbitration laws in line with international norms and best practices. Awards rendered in arbitrations seated in any of the other 155 signatories to the New York Convention can now be enforced in Myanmar and vice versa.

This chapter2 analyses the Arbitration Law 2016 and highlights the key differences between it and the Arbitration Act 1944, with a view to the Model Law as well as the Singapore International Arbitration Act (SIAA)3 (which also largely incorporates the Model Law). Generally, since the Arbitration Law 2016 is based on the Model Law which seeks to promote arbitration as an independent dispute resolution mechanism, it takes a more pro-arbitration and less interventionist stance compared to its predecessor.

Key highlights in the Arbitration Law 2016

Domestic and international arbitration

While the Arbitration Act 1944 only contemplated domestic arbitration, the Arbitration Law 2016 covers both domestic and international arbitration.

Under the Arbitration Law 2016, an arbitration is international if:

  • the place of arbitration determined in, or pursuant to, the arbitration agreement is situated outside the country in which the parties to the agreement have their place of business;
  • a place where any substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed or the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected is situated outside the country in which the parties to the agreement have their place of business; or
  • the parties to the arbitration agreement have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country.4

If a party has more than one place of business, the place of business is that which has the closest relationship to the arbitration agreement. If a party does not have a place of business, reference is to be made to his habitual residence.5 These provisions mirror the Model Law6 and the SIAA.7

Additionally, the Arbitration Law 2016 provides that an arbitration is also international if any party to the arbitration agreement has, at the time of the conclusion of the agreement, its place of business in any country other than Myanmar.8 This mirrors the SIAA, which uses Singapore as the reference point.9 However, the equivalent provision in the Model Law is slightly different as it does not use a single country as a reference point, but provides that an arbitration is considered international if the parties to the arbitration agreement have, at the time of the conclusion of that agreement, their places of business in different states.10

Arbitration agreement

The Arbitration Act 1944 and the Arbitration Law 2016 both require an arbitration agreement to be in writing.11

Unlike the Arbitration Act 1944, the new Arbitration Law 2016 explicitly clarifies the writing requirement. An arbitration agreement is deemed to be in writing if it is:

  • signed by the parties;
  • made by electronic communication such that the information contained therein is accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference; or
  • if it is contained in an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of an agreement is alleged by one party and not denied by another.12

As for the first criterion, it is self-evident that an arbitration agreement is in writing if it is signed by the parties. The latter two criteria are based on option 1, article 7 of the UNCITRAL Model Law 2006 (Model Law 2006),13 but the criteria as set out in the Model Law are even wider. It additionally provides that an arbitration agreement is deemed to be in writing if its content is recorded in any form, whether or not the arbitration agreement or contract has been concluded orally, by conduct, or by other means. Also, a reference to any document containing an arbitration clause constitutes an arbitration agreement in writing if the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract.14 However, the Arbitration Law 2016 has not adopted these two provisions.

The SIAA wholly adopts the above-mentioned Model Law 2006 position15 and further includes that a reference in a bill of lading to a charterparty or other document containing an arbitration clause shall constitute an arbitration agreement in writing if the reference is such as to make that clause part of the bill of lading.16

Separability and kompetenz-kompetenz

The separability doctrine provides that the arbitration agreement is distinct from its underlying contract. Hence, the nullity or discharge of the underlying contract does not ipso jure invalidate the arbitration agreement. Kompetenz-kompetenz picks up where separability ends. It allows the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including any objections over the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement.

Though the Arbitration Act 1944 was silent on separability, arbitration clauses have been accepted as separate from their underlying agreements.17 But the Arbitration Act 1944 expressly rejected kompetenz-kompetenz, mandating that parties challenging the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement had to apply to court to decide the matter.18 In contrast, separability and kompetenz-kompetenz are explicitly enshrined in the Arbitration Law 2016,19 the Model Law20 and the SIAA.21

Under the Arbitration Law 2016, where the tribunal rules that it has or does not have jurisdiction, a party may appeal to the court within 30 days of receipt of the decision.22 Similarly, under the SIAA, a party may appeal against a tribunal’s positive or negative determination on jurisdiction within 30 days of receipt of notice of that ruling.23 By contrast, under the Model Law, only a positive determination of jurisdiction is appealable.24 A tribunal’s negative ruling on jurisdiction is intended to be final and binding on that issue as regards the parties and is thus not susceptible to appeal.25

Stay of court proceedings

Under the Arbitration Act 1944, where a party to an arbitration agreement commences legal proceedings against any other party to that arbitration agreement, a court may, on the application of any party to the legal proceedings, stay the proceedings if it is satisfied that there is not sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement and that the applicant was, at the time when the proceedings were commenced, and still remains, ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration.26 The court therefore has discretion not to refer the matter to arbitration. This is similar to the position under the Singapore Arbitration Act (SAA),27 which applies to domestic and not international arbitrations and under which Singapore courts are conferred with a larger degree of supervisory powers.

By contrast, the Arbitration Law 2016 is less interventionist. Where a party refers a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement to the court, the court must refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.28 This is consistent with the Model Law29 and the SIAA.30

The arbitral tribunal

Constituting the tribunal

The Arbitration Act 1944 allows parties to agree on the number of arbitrators. There will be a sole arbitrator in the absence of any agreement.31 Where the arbitration agreement provides for an even number of arbitrators, the arbitrators shall appoint an umpire no later than one month from the latest date of their respective appointments.32 Where the arbitration agreement provides for three arbitrators – one to be appointed by each party and the third to be appointed by the two appointed arbitrators – the agreement shall have effect as if it provided for the appointment of an umpire and not for a third arbitrator.33

Under the Arbitration Law 2016, parties are still free to determine the number of arbitrators but it cannot be an even number.34 In the absence of any agreement, a sole arbitrator will be appointed.35 This is similar to the SIAA36 but different from the Model Law, which provides that the default number of arbitrators is three.37 Parties are free to agree on the appointment procedure, but where a party fails to act in accordance with the agreed procedure, the default appointing authority is the chief justice or any individual or entity designated by the chief justice.38 In an arbitration with three arbitrators, each party shall appoint one arbitrator and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the third arbitrator who ‘shall act as the presiding arbitrator’.39 Unlike the role played by the umpire in the Arbitration Act 1944, the ‘presiding arbitrator’ under the new law will also be involved in the rendering of the award and will not assume an active role only if the two arbitrators cannot agree.

Impartiality and independence of the tribunal

The Arbitration Act 1944 was silent as to the impartiality and independence of arbitrators. This requirement was instead found in case law.40 The Arbitration Law 2016 now expressly requires potential arbitrators and arbitrators from the time of appointment and throughout the arbitral proceedings to disclose in writing any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence.41 This is identical to the Model Law42 and SIAA43 positions.

Challenging the appointment of arbitrators

Under the Arbitration Act 1944, the court may remove an arbitrator if he fails to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on and proceeding with the reference and making an award, or if the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings.44

In contrast, under the Arbitration Law 2016, an arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality or independence, or if he does not possess the qualifications agreed to by the parties.45 These grounds are exhaustive under the Model Law46 and SIAA,47 but on a literal interpretation of the relevant provisions under the Arbitration Law 2016, they appear not to be exhaustive, and an arbitrator may possibly be challenged on other grounds other than those stated in section 14(c) of the Arbitration Law 2016. However, it may be argued that a more constructive interpretation or approach should be taken and that those grounds should be read exhaustively.

Tribunal-ordered interim measures

The only provision in the Arbitration Act 1944 which explicitly addressed tribunal-ordered interim measures is section 13(e), which empowered the tribunal to administer interrogatories. Though the proviso to section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act 1944 provided that the court’s power to make the orders listed in the Second Schedule did not prejudice any power that may be vested in an arbitrator to make the same orders, the Arbitration Act 1944 did not expressly confer upon the tribunal those Second Schedule powers. Whether a tribunal could exercise the Second Schedule powers thus likely depended on the arbitration agreement.

The Arbitration Law 2016 expands the list of tribunal-ordered interim measures. The tribunal is expressly empowered to order:

  • security for costs;
  • discovery of documents and interrogatories;
  • giving of evidence by affidavit;
  • preservation, interim custody or sale of any property under dispute;
  • samples to be taken from, or any observation to be made of or experiment conducted upon, any property under dispute;
  • preservation or interim custody of any evidence;
  • provision of security for the amount under dispute; and
  • issuance of temporary injunction or other interim measures.48

Tribunal-ordered interim measures, whether or not Myanmar is the arbitral seat, may be enforced by the court as if they were the court’s orders and directives.49 Where the arbitral seat is outside Myanmar, the applicant must additionally prove that the interim measure is of the same type as an interim measure made in Myanmar for the court to enforce the interim measure.50

Article 17 of the Model Law empowers a tribunal to grant interim measures unless otherwise agreed by the parties, but does not provide a list of such measures. The SIAA does have a list of tribunal-ordered interim measures that mirror the Arbitration Law 2016, but the former has an extra tribunal-ordered interim measure – the power to ensure that any award which may be made in the arbitral proceedings is not rendered ineffectual by the dissipation of assets by a party.51

Court-ordered interim measures

The Arbitration Law 2016 also provides for court-ordered interim measures and may make orders for:

  • obtaining testimonies;
  • preservation of any evidence;
  • issuance of orders concerning property connected to any dispute under or arising from arbitration;
  • inspection, making of photographic records, preservation or taking into custody of any property under dispute;
  • samples to be take from, or any observation to be made of or experiment conducted upon any property under dispute;
  • permitting the entry into any premises owned by or under the control of any party involved in the arbitration in order to carry out the said matters;
  • disposal of any significant property under arbitration; and
  • issuance of a temporary injunction or appointment of a receiver.52

Article 17J of the Model Law 2006 provides that even though courts have the same power of issuing interim measures in respect of arbitration proceedings, they must exercise the power ‘in consideration of the specific features of international arbitration’. The SIAA is even more explicit that court-ordered interim measures should defer to tribunal-ordered interim measures. If the case is not one of urgency, the court can order interim measures only if the application was made with the tribunal’s permission or the agreement in writing of the other parties.53 Furthermore, the court can order interim measures only if or to the extent that the tribunal has no power or is unable for the time being to act effectively.54 This is similarly reflected in the Arbitration Law 2016, where court-ordered interim measures are only applicable in certain circumstances and would take a backseat to the tribunal’s authority.

Applicable law

The Arbitration Law 2016 differentiates between domestic and international arbitration solely for the purpose of determining the applicable law to the dispute.

Under the Arbitration Law 2016, for domestic arbitration where Myanmar is the arbitral seat, the applicable law is Myanmar law, ostensibly regardless of the intention of the parties.55

However for international arbitration where Myanmar is the arbitral seat, the tribunal should apply the law chosen by the parties.56 This is consistent with the position under the Arbitration Act 1944. Even though the Arbitration Act 1944 was silent as to the determination of the applicable law, Myanmar courts have accepted that party autonomy is paramount and the applicable law should be determined in accordance with the parties’ intentions.57 Under the Arbitration Law 2016, if the parties fail to choose the applicable law, the tribunal may apply the law which it considers applicable.58 This is the voie directe approach, which allows the tribunal to directly apply a particular law or rules of law.

The Model Law and the SIAA also provide that the tribunal decide the dispute in accordance with the law chosen by the parties.59 However, where parties fail to choose the applicable law, the Model Law and the SIAA adopt the more complex voie indirecte approach. The tribunal will first determine the applicable conflict of laws rules because applying them to discern the applicable law.60

Under the Arbitration Law 2016, Model Law and the SIAA, the tribunal can also decide the matter ex aequo et bono if expressly authorised by the parties.61

Setting aside

Under the Arbitration Act 1944, a setting aside application had to be made within 30 days of the date of service of the notice of filing the award.62 The setting aside grounds were:

  • that the arbitrator or umpire misconducted himself or the proceedings;
  • that the award was made after the issue of a court order superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings had become invalid under section 35; or
  • that the award was improperly procured or otherwise invalid.63

Under the Arbitration Law 2016, a setting aside application can now be made within three months from the date on which the applicant had received the award, or if a request had been made for the correction or interpretation of an award, or for an additional award, from the date that request had been disposed of by the tribunal.64 The setting aside grounds are:

  • a party to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity;
  • the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or failing any indication thereon, under the prevailing law of Myanmar;
  • the applicant was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case;
  • the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration, provided that if the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, only that part of the award which contains decisions on matters not submitted to arbitration may be set aside;
  • the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the Arbitration Law 2016, unless the agreement was in conflict with a non-derogable provision of the Arbitration Law 2016;
  • the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under prevailing law; or
  • the award is in conflict with the national interests of Myanmar.65

Under the Arbitration Act 1944, courts had a wide discretion in deciding whether to set aside an award, especially under the general catch-all ground that the award ‘was improperly procured or [...] otherwise invalid’. Now, the setting aside grounds under the Arbitration Law 2016 generally mirror those under the Model Law,66 for which there are numerous authorities that these grounds should be construed narrowly given the pro-enforcement Model Law regime.67 The SIAA also adopts the Model Law setting aside grounds but supplements them with two others – namely, when the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption or if a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the award by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.68

It should also be noted that section 41a(7) of the Arbitration Law 2016 uses the term ‘national interest’ while the equivalent provisions in the Model Law and the SIAA use ‘public policy’ instead. It is unclear how the Myanmar courts will construe ‘national interest’.

It appears that for domestic awards, the objecting party cannot simply resist enforcement passively. Section 7 of the Arbitration Law 2016 provides that no court shall intervene in matters governed by the Arbitration Law 2016 except where so provided and no provision allows for passive resistance of enforcement of a domestic award. An objecting party must thus apply for setting aside within a three-month time frame, failing which the objecting party cannot resist enforcement.

Appeals

In addition to setting aside, the Arbitration Law 2016 allows a party to, with notice to the other parties, apply to court for a ruling on an issue of law arising from a domestic award.69 The court shall allow the appeal if the tribunal’s ruling on the issue materially prejudices the rights of one or both parties and if the award made by the tribunal is completely wrong.70 However, where the parties have agreed in writing to disallow appeal or that the stating of grounds in the award is unnecessary, no appeal shall be allowed.71 This is a completely novel provision that has no genesis in the Arbitration Act 1944. Neither is there an equivalent under the Model Law or the SIAA.

As regards applying to court for a ruling on an issue of law, a parallel may be drawn to the SAA which, unlike the SIAA, allows for appeals on questions of law arising out of an award.72 Singapore adopts a dual regime for domestic and international arbitrations. Courts are vested with more supervisory powers for domestic arbitrations under the SAA,73 and the avenue for appeal on questions of law is one such example. However, appeals on questions of law in Singapore is confined to domestic arbitrations under the SAA, while appeals on issues of law in Myanmar ostensibly extends even to awards made pursuant to international arbitrations as long as the seat of arbitration is Myanmar.

Enforcement of foreign awards

The Arbitration Act 1944 was completely silent on the enforcement of foreign awards. Enforcement of foreign awards used to be solely governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, which gave effect to Myanmar’s treaty obligations under the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927 (Geneva Convention).

Pursuant to Myanmar’s accession to the New York Convention, the Arbitration Law 2016 duly provides for enforcement of foreign awards. Under the new law, the enforcing party must produce to the court the original award or a duly authenticated copy, the original arbitration agreement or an authorised copy, and evidence to prove that the award is a foreign award.74 The latter requirement is not found in the New York Convention, the Model Law or the SIAA, and it is unclear what evidence is necessary to satisfy this requirement. Where the award or arbitration agreement is in a foreign language, the enforcing party must also produce a duly certified translation into English.75

Myanmar courts may refuse to enforce a foreign award on the following grounds under the Arbitration Law 2016:

  • a party to the arbitration agreement in pursuance of which the award was made was, under the law applicable to it, under some incapacity;
  • the arbitration agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties have subjected it, or in the absence of any such indication, under the law of the country where the award was made;
  • the respondent was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to present his case in the arbitration proceedings;
  • the award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains a decision on the matter beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
  • the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or failing which, not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place;
  • the award has not yet become binding on the parties to the arbitral award or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made;
  • the subject-matter of the difference between the parties is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of Myanmar; or
  • enforcement of the award would be contrary to the national interest of Myanmar.76

These grounds generally correspond to article V(1) and (2) of the New York Convention, article 36(1) of the Model Law and section 31(2) to (4) of the SIAA, but there are two differences:

  • Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention, article 36(1)(a)(iii) of the Model Law and section 31(3) of the SIAA contain a proviso that for the fourth ground above, where the decisions on matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those not so submitted, that part of the award which contains decisions on matters submitted to arbitration may be recognised and enforced. However, this proviso is not enacted in the Arbitration Law 2016.
  • Section 46c(2) of the Arbitration Law 2016 uses the term ‘national interest’ while the equivalent provisions in the New York Convention, Model Law and SIAA use ‘public policy’ instead. It is unclear if ‘national interest’ will be equated to ‘public policy’ and if so, whether the narrower conception of ‘international public policy’ will be preferred over the broader conception of domestic public policy. Since the Arbitration Law 2016 is as yet only officially available in the Myanmar language, these questions remain open.

The way forward

It is heartening that the new Arbitration Law 2016 brings Myanmar’s arbitration laws in line with international norms and best practices. However, this alone is insufficient. Much still depends on the attitude of Myanmar courts towards the interpretation and the application of the new legislation, especially in relation to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Myanmar.

For example, as mentioned above, Myanmar courts can refuse to enforce a foreign arbitral ground under the Arbitration Law 2016 on the ground that it would be contrary to Myanmar’s ‘national interest’. If ‘national interest’ is given too broad an interpretation, this would obstruct the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Myanmar, which is contrary to the objective of the New York Convention. Judges must thus be trained on the proper procedures and philosophy behind the enforcement of foreign awards. The development of a pro-arbitration spirit is imperative, even when state-linked parties are involved, for arbitration to flourish as an independent and effective dispute resolution mechanism in Myanmar.

In addition, an arbitration-friendly culture and infrastructure must also be promoted. In last year’s chapter, we referred to the dispute between Fraser and Neave Limited (F&N) and Myanmar Economic Holdings Limited (MEHL), which was arbitrated under Myanmar law in Singapore. The arbitrators had ruled in favour of MEHL, declaring that MEHL was entitled to buy out F&N’s stake in Myanmar Brewery. This dispute has now finally been resolved, with F&N agreeing to complete the sale at US$560 million.77 That MEHL, a government entity, was the successful party may provide the necessary reassurance to Myanmar’s political and business class that arbitration is a neutral mechanism that does not disadvantage Myanmar parties.

It is notable that other forms of alternative dispute resolution are gradually being accepted in Myanmar. Officials from the Singapore International Mediation Centre recently visited Myanmar to promote the Centre’s services and mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism.78

As for arbitration infrastructure, it is encouraging that the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI) has announced plans to set up arbitration centres to deal with economic disputes across the country. These arbitration centres aim to mediate general disputes including economic affairs, and the first arbitration centre will be established at UMFCCI headquarters in Lanmadow Township, Yangon. To assist in this process, experts from SIAC have conducted training and workshops in Myanmar.79 Myanmar delegations have also organised study visits to Singapore, which involved discussions with SIAC representatives.80 These initiatives should help Myanmar attain, in time to come, the critical mass of trained lawyers, arbitrators, judges, as well as knowledgable businesspeople and companies necessary for a functioning arbitration ecosystem.

The enactment of the Arbitration Law 2016 is a significant but nascent step towards a more modern, vibrant and efficacious arbitration ecosystem in Myanmar.

Notes

  1. Section 59, Arbitration Law 2016.
  2. Note: This article is written based on an unofficial English translation of the Arbitration Law 2016.
  3. Cap. 143A, 2002 Rev. Ed.
  4. Section 3i(2), (3) and (4), Arbitration Law 2016.
  5. Explanation to Section 3i, Arbitration Law 2016.
  6. Article 1(3)(b) and (c) and 1(4), Model Law.
  7. Section 5(2)(b) and (c) and 5(3), SIAA.
  8. Section 3i(1) Arbitration Law 2016.
  9. Section 5(2)(a), SIAA.
  10. Article 1(3)(a), Model Law.
  11. Section 2(a), Arbitration Act 1944 and Section 3b, Arbitration Law 2016.
  12. Section 9a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  13. Article 7(4) and (5), Option 1, Model Law 2006.
  14. Article 7(3) and 7(6), Option 1, Model Law 2006.
  15. Section 2A(4), (5), (6) and (7), SIAA.
  16. Section 2A(8), SIAA.
  17. Thida Aye and James Finch, Asia Arbitration Handbook 2011 (Oxford University Press), chapter 17, para 17.20.
  18. Section 33, Arbitration Act 1944.
  19. Section 18a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  20. Article 16(1), Model Law.
  21. Article 16(1), Model Law, given force of law by Section 3(1), SIAA.
  22. Section 18e, Arbitration Law 2016.
  23. Section 10(3), SIAA.
  24. Article 16(3), Model Law.
  25. PT Asuransi. Dexia Bank [2007]. SLR 597 at para 68.
  26. Section 34, Arbitration Act 1944.
  27. Cap. 10, 2002 Rev. Ed., Section 6(2).
  28. Section 10a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  29. Article 8(1), Model Law.
  30. Section 6(2), SIAA.
  31. Section. read within para 1, First Schedule, Arbitration Act 1944.
  32. Section. read within para 2, First Schedule, Arbitration Act 1944.
  33. Section 10(1), Arbitration Act 1944.
  34. Section 12a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  35. Section 12b, Arbitration Law 2016.
  36. Section 9, SIAA.
  37. Article 10(2), Model Law.
  38. Section 13c and 13d, Arbitration Law 2016.
  39. Section 13d(1), Arbitration Law 2016.
  40. Thida Aye and James Finch (Note 16, above), para 17.85.
  41. Section 14a and 14b, Arbitration Law 2016.
  42. Article 12(1), Model Law.
  43. Article 12(1), Model Law, given force of law by Section 3(1), SIAA.
  44. Section 11(1) and (2), Arbitration Act 1944.
  45. Section 14c, Arbitration Law 2016.
  46. Article 12(2), Model Law.
  47. Article 12(2), Model Law, given force of law by Section 3(1), SIAA.
  48. Section 19a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  49. Section 31a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  50. Section 31b, Arbitration Law 2016.
  51. Section 12(1), SIAA.
  52. Section 11a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  53. Section 12A(5), SIAA.
  54. Section 12A(6), SIAA.
  55. Section 32a(1), Arbitration Law 2016.
  56. Section 32a(2)(aa), Arbitration Law 2016.
  57. See China Siam Line by their local agents Chip Hwat. Nay Yi Yi Stores [1954] (HC) BLR 270;. Ramasamy Iyengar and others. SVKV Velayudhan Chettiar and One [1952] BLR 25.
  58. Section 32a(2)(cc), Arbitration Law 2016.
  59. Article 28(1), Model Law, given force of law by Section 3(1), SIAA.
  60. Article 28(2), Model Law, given force of law by Section 3(1), SIAA.
  61. Section 32b, Arbitration Law 2016, Article 28(3), Model Law, given force of law by Section 3(1), SIAA.
  62. Section 158, Limitation Act.
  63. Section 30, Arbitration Act 1944.
  64. Section 41b, Arbitration Law 2016.
  65. Section 41a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  66. Article 34(2), Model Law.
  67. Gary Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd Ed (Kluwer Law International), 3177.
  68. Section 24, SIAA.
  69. Section 42a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  70. Section 43a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  71. Section 42b and 42c, Arbitration Law 2016.
  72. Section 49, SAA.
  73. Soh Beng Tee. Fairmount Development [2007]. SLR(R) 86 at para 61.
  74. Section 45a, Arbitration Law 2016.
  75. Section 45b, Arbitration Law 2016.
  76. Section 46b and 46c, Arbitration Law 2016.
  77. ‘F&N to sell Myanmar Brewery stake for S$775m after dispute’, Today Online, www.todayonline.com/business/fn-sell-myanmar-brewery-stake-s775m-after-dispute.
  78. Su Phyo Win, ‘Singapore pushes mediation service for business dispute resolution’, The Myanmar Times, www.mmtimes.com/index.php/business/15750-singapore-pushes-mediation-service-for-business-dispute-resolution.html.
  79. ‘UMFCCI to set up arbitration centres’, Myanmar Business News, http://myanmarbusinessnews.com/umfcci-to-set-up-arbitration-centres/#.VspkbenUiJB.
  80. ‘The Myanmar delegation led by H.E. Dr. Tun Shin, the Attorney General of the Union, arrived back from the Study Visit to Singapore 6th May 2013, Nay Pyi Taw’, www.oag.gov.mm/?q=en/content/myanmar-delegation-led-he-dr-tun-shin-attorney-general-union-arrived-back-study-visit.

Get unlimited access to all Global Arbitration Review content