- United Kingdom - Solicitors
- United Kingdom - The Bar
- United States
- Canada
- Caribbean
- Deutschland
- Paris
- Tax Directors Handbook
THE LEGAL 500'S GUIDE TO AUSTRALIA'S RISING STARS
- The Lex 100
- Firms in the spotlight
- Interviews with
- What is The Legal 500?
- Meet the team
- How can my law firm get involved?
- Research calendar
- The Legal 500 on Twitter
- Contact us
- Other Legalease products
ABOUT US
AVAILABLE NOW...
GC Powerlist:
China 2019INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION POWERLIST
UNITED KINGDOM
- The Legal Business Awards
- Enterprise GC
- The Legal 500 UK Awards 2019
- The changing role of in-house counsel in Europe
- The Legal 500's Guide to Australia's Rising Stars
- Middle East Disputes Summit 2019
- The Legal Business Global London Roundtable Dinner 2019
- Doing business in Central America
- GC Summit Russia
- The development of Colombian compliance and anti-corruption legislation
- Cost-effective arbitration in Kuwait
- European GC's use of tech - AI Special
- The quantum of equality – The women lawyers redefining disputes
- Crisis prevention and management roundtable in Shanghai
- Legal Business 100 Roundtable
- Legal Business Legal Technology Roundtable
- Leadership insight
- Human rights insight
- MINT: the legal challenges of working and investing in emerging economies
- Response to Brexit
- An investigation of the GCC and Middle East legal market
- Litigation and regulatory challenges in financial services
- AI and the law tools of tomorrow:
A special report - Scottish GCs
- North West clients
- COMPANIES
- Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
- Baker McKenzie
- DLA Piper
- World Services Group
- Eversheds Sutherland
- RPC
- Clifford Chance
- KPMG
- PayPal
- GC DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION REPORTS
- Shaping diversity
- A Numbers Game: Diversity in Europe
- Barbara Levi Mager describes Sandoz's approach to diversity
- Louise Pentland discusses putting diversity front and centre at PayPal
- Prash Naik (Channel 4) talks about the 360° Diversity Charter
- Ian Johnson explains the strategic importance of inclusive work environments

- Tel:
- Work +65 6922 8668
- Fax:
- Fax +65 6922 8650
- Email:
Abu Dhabi, Atlanta, Beijing, Berlin, Birmingham, Böblingen, Bratislava, Brussels, Budapest, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Darwin, Denver, Doha, Dubai, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Houston, Leeds, London, Los Angeles, Madrid, Manchester, Miami, Moscow, New York, Newark, Palo Alto, Paris, Perth, Phoenix, Prague, Rio de Janeiro, Riyadh, San Francisco, Santo Domingo, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney, Tampa, Tokyo, Warsaw, Washington DC
- The Legal 500 rankings
- Firm profile
- Lawyer profiles
There is no profile available for this office.
Search News and Articles
Legal Developments in Singapore
Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
-
PATENTABILITY OF SOFTWARE IN SINGAPORE
 leading_lines_newsletter_dec_2017 -
Overview of the Singapore Cartel Regulation 2017 - article in GTDT
Overview of the Singapore Cartel Regulation 2017 - article in GTDT -
Third Party Funding in International Arbitration and What It Means for You: Civil Law (Amendment) Bi
Drew & Napier Data Protection Quarterly Update Q4/2016
Drew & Napier Data Protection Quarterly Update Q4/2016Applicable Test: Application for leave under s216A of the Companies Act to intervene in on-going pro
Applicable Test: Application for leave under s216A of the Companies Act to intervene in on-going proceedingsCompetition Law Quarterly Update Q3/2016
16 Dec 2016Recovery of Third Party Funding Fees as Costs of the Arbitration
12 Oct 2016SGHC dismisses applications to set aside arbitral awards on the ground that there was no contract
10 Oct 2016Drew & Napier Data Protection Quarterly Update Q3/2016
Drew & Napier Data Protection Quarterly Update Q3/2016Promissory Note Holders Not Bound by Arbitration Clause in Underlying Contract
This update discusses the recent case of Rals International Pte Ltd v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA  [2016] SGCA 53 where the Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that the assignee’s claim based on a number of promissory notes did not fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement in the underlying Supply Agreement. The assignee of such notes was therefore free to litigate in the courts.
© 2019 www.legal500.com