Wednesday, 16 May 2018, Maxwell Chambers, Singapore


Matthew Secomb

White & Case

Amanda Lees

Simmons & Simmons

2018 Programme

9.00: Welcome coffee and registration 

9.30: Chairs’ opening remarks

Matthew Secomb, White & Case
Amanda Lees, Simmons & Simmons  

9.40: Session One: Enforcement: bridging the gap? 

There is a different between having your award recognised by local courts and getting at actual assets.  How does one bridge that gap – particularly in Asia?  Once you are clear of the court system, what happens? 

In this panel a series of specialists in enforcement - from around the region, including India, Indonesia and China - will discuss navigating the gap between the courts and getting awards into real money.

Questions they’re expected to discuss include:

  • Deciding where to enforce against an Asian opponent: is it better to enforce near to their home?
  • What happens once you clear the court system?
  • Is there an enforcement division of the local court system – and how will it operate? Is there a way to stop it from acting as a negotiator between the sides?
  • What does a model enforcement strategy for Asia look like?  Which other professionals will be part of it?  Are subsidiaries fair game? 
  • What other region specific pitfalls do newcomers need to be aware of? 
  • Avoiding visits to India – does the Middle-East route work? 
  • Are non-traditional solutions worth a go, e.g. worldwide relationship orders?  What legal questions might that raise? 

10.55: Coffee break

11.25: Session two: the GAR Live Question Time

A twist on our usual Tylney Hall format. A panel of distinguished arbitrators will discuss questions submitted by the audience and the moderators.

12.40: Networking lunch

14.00: Session three: dissecting bifurcation

Everyone agrees bifurcation is a good idea, but is it really being embraced?  Some initial evidence suggests no. 

What are people afraid of, and are those fears justified. How can arbitrators be nudged into embracing it - for the right cases? 

Questions they’re expected to discuss include:

  • What is the ‘ideal’ case for bifurcation?
  • No-go zone: when is bifurcation off the table?
  • Does bifurcation save costs? Long term? Short term?
  • Does due process paranoia prevent arbitrators from bifurcating when they should?
  • Does bifurcation ever go ‘wrong’?
  • Should the likelihood of settlement play a role in deciding whether to bifurcate?
  • Parties taking partial awards to the national courts: a reason to shy away from bifurcation?

15.15: Coffee break

15.45: Session four: The GAR Live Inquisition - Power of the institution vs Party autonomy

This session will replicate a US senate committee hearing with a succession of witnesses being ‘grilled’ by a panel of GAR Live inquisitors, who are seeking to get to the bottom of a problem. 

The panel will explore the extent to which institutions should have power over arbitrations, at the expense of party autonomy.  Why shouldn’t institutions be able to impose measures for cost effectiveness and efficiency that override the arbitration agreement?  After all, who has more experience in seen what works and what doesn’t?

Amongst others, topics will include:

  • Appointment of sole arbitrators when the arbitration agreement specifies a tribunal of three (SIAC expedited award not enforced in Shanghai, new ICC powers when the amount in dispute is small)
  • Cross institutional consolidation protocol
  • Prospective / retrospective rule changes

17.00: Chairs’ closing remarks

Matthew Secomb, White & Case
Amanda Lees, Simmons & Simmons  

17.10: Close of conference


Maxwell Chambers, 32 Maxwell Road, #03-01, 069115, Singapore


Type Price Until
Super Early £400  6 Apr 2018
Early £500 4 May 2018
Standard £600 16 May 2018


Complimentary In-house/governmetnal registration available