16.09.2020

Singapore Convention comes into force

The Singapore Mediation Convention has now entered into force, creating a comprehensive framework for the enforcement of international mediation settlement agreements.

The Convention (the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation) enables enforcement of international mediation settlements by the courts of the state in which the relevant assets are located.  It removes the need for entities to litigate breaches of these agreements: if an entity seeking enforcement of a mediation agreement produces a copy of the settlement agreement and evidence that the agreement was reached through mediation, the State parties are required to recognise and enforce that agreement.  It is analogous to the New York Convention 1958, which enables recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards.

To date, 53 states have signed the Convention, including the world’s two largest economies, China and the United States. 

Only six states have ratified or approved the Convention (Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Fiji, Belarus and Ecuador) and so it currently applies only to mediation settlements where two or more parties are based in those states. 

The European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth countries are conspicuously absent.  There are reports that the European Union is somewhat skeptical about the need for the Convention, and while the United Kingdom has published a draft illustrative statutory instrument showing how the Convention could be implemented, it has not taken any other steps towards signing or ratifying the Convention.

New Zealand has not signed the Convention.  New Zealand is a mediation-friendly jurisdiction, and a number of our trading partners (for example China, the United States and a number of Latin American jurisdictions) have already signed up.  In due course it may be perceived that there is an advantage to New Zealand in ratifying the Convention.

For a more detailed examination of the Singapore Convention, see our previous article here

 

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

 

 

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

Knowing your limits: High Court confirms liability caps in engineering consultancy agreements are consistent with Building Act duties
Design errors in a construction project can result in millions of dollars in loss.  Standard form consultancy agreements typically limit the amount that can be recovered for such errors.  The cap on...
09.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
glenn carstens peters npxXWgQZQ unsplash
Sender beware – how private are digital workplace conversations?
Following on from the recent Official Information Act request for correspondence between Ministry of Justice employees, employees may be wondering how private their online conversations with colleague...
04.07.2024 Posted in Employment
Concrete pillars impressive
TCC confirms Slip Rule limits in Adjudications
The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has confirmed the narrow parameters of the ‘slip rule’ in the UK, which allows adjudicators to amend their determination to correct for any clerical or ...
02.07.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
Scots rule standard notification clause was condition precedent
In a warning for contractors, a Scottish Court has ruled that a standard form notification clause was a condition precedent to recovering time-related costs (TRCs) (FES Ltd v HFD Construction Group Lt...
01.07.2024 Posted in Construction
rape blossom
Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Date of Default: Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest
The decision in Ayhan Sezer v Agroinvest [2024] EWHC 479 (Comm) clarifies that where there has been an anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract, the “date of default” is the date of the breach ...
25.06.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
My cross-lease neighbour wants me to consent to their extension. Can I refuse?
From time to time a cross-lease property owner may be asked by their cross-lease neighbour for their consent to specific matters, such as proposed structural alterations or additions to their neighbou...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
Contract stock edit
I have a land covenant (or an easement) registered on my title that restricts the use of my land. Can I get this removed?
Where land is subject to covenants and easements, owners might find themselves in a position where they are unintentionally or unknowingly in breach of a covenant or easement or have purchased land th...
25.06.2024 Posted in Property
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.