Gordon Smith*, Mark Lim** and John Choong***

‘The UNCITRAL Model Law and the parties’ chosen arbitration rules – Complementary or mutually exclusive? The Singapore Case of Dermajaya Properties’. In this article, Gordon Smith, Mark Lim and John Choong discuss the recent case of Dermajaya Properties, in which the Singapore High Court held that even though parties to an international arbitration had (purportedly) adopted the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, those Rules did not apply. Instead, it was held that the parties were bound by the UNCITRAL Model Law and the Singapore International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 1995 Ed). This surprising decision is the latest in a series of recent cases from Singapore which have raised interesting issues regarding the nature of the relationship between the Model Law, the enacting legislation and the parties’ chosen arbitration rules. This article considers the implications of these decisions, examines the underlying policy issues, suggests some solutions and concludes by proposing that Dermajaya Properties should be legislatively overruled.

*   Gordon Smith is a partner with the International Commercial Arbitration practice group of Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow, Singapore.

** Mark Lim is an associate with the Disputes practice group of Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow, Singapore.

***John Choong is an associate with the International Commercial Arbitration practice group of Baker & McKenzie.Wong & Leow, Singapore. Baker & McKenzie instructed counsel for Toyo Engineering Corporation in the John Holland case (please see fn. 14) and acted for Toyo in the arbitration from which that case arose. The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. The authors welcome comments to this article. The authors can be contacted at: gordon.smith@bakernet.com; mark.lim@bakernet.com and john.choong@bakernet.com.