Oon & Bazul LLC

Oon & Bazul LLP is pleased to welcome Sngeeta Rai as a Partner in its Dispute Resolution practice, further strengthening the firm’s capability to handle complex, high-value disputes across industries and jurisdictions. Sngeeta was previously a Director at Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, advising on significant commercial disputes and working closely with Mr Davinder Singh SC. She has extensive experience representing listed companies and high-net-worth individuals in disputes including contractual claims, shareholder disagreements, property and inheritance disputes, medical negligence and defamation. She is adept at combining technical precision with strategic insight and a pragmatic, client-focused approach. She began her career as a Justices’ Law Clerk to the Chief Justice and Judges of the Supreme Court, before serving as an Assistant Registrar. This combination of private practice and judicial experience provides her with a deep understanding of court processes, enhancing her ability to guide clients through complex litigation. She has undertaken an overseas attachment at Fountain Court Chambers in London and is an accredited mediator with the Singapore Mediation Centre. Outside of work, she enjoys mentoring aspiring lawyers preparing for the Singapore Bar Examinations, sharing her insights to support the next generation of legal talent. Commenting on the appointment, Managing Partner Bazul Ashhab said “Sngeeta is exactly the calibre of lawyer who complements and strengthens our formidable disputes practice. With her exceptional skill, judgment, and experience, she will help us deliver results on the most complex and high-value matters to even greater heights. Her appointment reflects our continued commitment to staying ahead of the curve and offering clients a disputes capability that few others can match.” Recognised by the Asian Legal Business as one of the 40 exceptional legal talents in Asia under the age of 40, Sngeeta’s addition demonstrates the firm’s commitment to attracting talent with purpose and reinforces Oon & Bazul’s position as a leading, clientfocused disputes practice. Find out more about the firm’s Litigation & Dispute Resolution practice.

AUTHORSLionel ChanDispute Resolution TeamEdouard AmetDispute Resolution TeamA freezing injunction, historically known as a Mareva injunction, is one of the most powerful interim remedies available to a litigant in Singapore. When granted, it restrains a defendant from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing assets in a manner that may frustrate the enforcement of a judgment which the applicant hopes to obtain.Understandably, applicants often focus on demonstrating that they have a good arguable case, particularly where fraud is alleged. However, a good arguable case on the merits is not, without more, sufficient. The applicant must also show a real risk that the defendant will dissipate assets so as to frustrate enforcement.This requirement is not satisfied by a mere possibility of dissipation, or by unsupported fear. The applicant must place solid evidence before the Court. The Court will scrutinise the precise nature of the defendant’s conduct and whether it has a real bearing on dissipation.The Governing ApproachA freezing injunction is not security for a claimA freezing injunction is not intended to provide the claimant with security. The jurisdiction prevents a defendant from frustrating enforcement by dealing with assets improperly.In Farooq Ahmad Mann v Xia Zheng [2024] SGHC 182, the Court described the freezing injunction as a corrective and, oftentimes, prophylactic measure against the defendant’s abuse of the Court’s process by stultifying the enforcement of its orders and judgments. The focus is not simply on whether the defendant may be unable to satisfy a judgment. The inquiry is whether there is a real risk that the defendant will deal with his assets outside the ordinary course of business or domestic affairs so as to frustrate enforcement.Financial weakness, international connections, or difficulty of enforcement may be relevant in context. However, they do not by themselves justify a freezing injunction. The applicant must identify conduct showing that the risk of non-enforcement is generated or increased by the defendant.Fraud is relevant, but not sufficient in itselfIt is common for an applicant to rely on alleged fraud as the foundation for a freezing injunction. While fraud is often relevant, it is not conclusive.In Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd [2015] SGCA 45 (“Bouvier”), the Court of Appeal rejected the proposition that a good arguable case of fraud automatically establishes a real risk of dissipation. The Court must instead examine the nature of the dishonesty alleged and whether it has a real and material bearing on the likelihood that the defendant will dissipate assets.Applicants should therefore avoid treating fraud as self-executing. It is not enough to say that because the defendant is alleged to have acted dishonestly, the defendant must therefore be likely to dissipate assets. The better approach is to identify the precise features of the dishonest conduct which bear on dissipation.Conduct Which May Support a Real Risk of DissipationMisappropriation, diversion and concealmentThe strongest cases are those where the defendant’s conduct itself involves misappropriation, diversion, concealment, or unexplained movement of assets.In JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 27, the alleged round-tripping scheme was treated as conduct evidencing a lack of probity that was directly relevant to assessing the risk of dissipation. Similarly, in Madoff Securities International Ltd v Raven [2011] EWHC 3102, which was considered in Bouvier, the Court held that the use of sham invoices and the concealment of the true nature of payments over a sustained period, coupled with the absence of any evidence explaining such conduct, demonstrated a serious risk of dissipation.However, caution must be exercised in relying on such authorities. The inquiry into whether there is a real risk of dissipation is inherently fact-sensitive and turns on the particular factual matrix of each case.Unusual movement of funds and post-demand disposalsA pattern of unusual or unexplained movement of funds is often a powerful indicator of a real risk of dissipation, particularly where the transactions lack any apparent commercial justification.In Continental Shipping Line Pte Ltd v Jonathan John Shipping Ltd [2025] SGCA 36, the Court of Appeal recognised that such a pattern may be material. The focus is not simply on the fact that money has moved. Commercial parties routinely move money in the ordinary course of business. What matters is whether the movement is unusual, unexplained, or inconsistent with ordinary commercial conduct.The timing of asset disposals may also be significant. Where a defendant seeks to dispose of assets after becoming aware of proceedings and does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the disposal or for what will be done with the proceeds, this may support an inference of a risk of dissipation.Applicants should therefore pay close attention to the sequence of events. A disposal which may appear neutral in isolation may take on a different complexion if it occurs shortly after a demand, a letter before action, the commencement of proceedings, or service of court papers.Evasiveness and non-disclosureA defendant’s evasiveness may also be relevant, particularly where the defendant refuses to disclose assets, gives inconsistent explanations, or fails to account for substantial movements of funds.However, applicants should be careful not to overstate this point. In Bouvier, the Court of Appeal made clear that non-disclosure will not always justify an inference of dissipation. It may be relevant where there is a total refusal to disclose assets, or where the disclosure provided is so glaringly inadequate or suspicious that the deficiencies cannot be explained by the urgency with which the disclosure was made.A weak explanation may not, on its own, justify a freezing injunction. However, when considered together with unexplained fund movements, attempted asset disposals, opaque structures, or sham documentation, it may form part of a cumulative case.Matters Which Should Not Be OverstatedApplicants should be cautious when relying on matters such as offshore structures, international business interests, liquid assets, or unrelated misconduct.Such matters may be relevant, but they are not determinative. Many legitimate businesses operate through international or offshore structures. Most commercial parties also hold assets that can be moved, including bank balances, securities or cryptocurrency. The relevant question is not whether the defendant has the ability to move assets, but whether there is solid evidence that he is likely to do so improperly.In Bouvier, the Court of Appeal was not prepared to infer a real risk of dissipation merely from the defendant’s international shareholdings and financial sophistication. The Court referred to Art Trend Ltd v Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd and others [1981-1982] SLR(R) 633, where Lai Kew Chai J held that knowledge of international finance and transfers of funds is not evidence of a predisposition to remove assets to frustrate a judgment.Similarly, peripheral allegations should be treated with care. A defendant’s involvement in other proceedings, regulatory issues, or unrelated misconduct may say little about whether he is likely to dissipate assets to frustrate enforcement. An overinclusive affidavit can obscure the real points and may give the impression that the application is being advanced on suspicion rather than solid evidence.Practical ConsiderationsDelay in seeking reliefA freezing injunction is, by its nature, an urgent remedy. While delay is not necessarily fatal, unexplained delay may undermine the applicant’s assertion that there is a real risk of dissipation.In Bouvier, the Court of Appeal considered delay as one of the matters relevant to whether the applicants genuinely believed that there was a real risk of dissipation. Applicants should therefore act promptly once they become aware of facts suggesting such risk. If time has been taken to investigate the matter, obtain documents, trace assets or prepare the application, this should be explained.CASE IN FOCUS · DISPUTE RESOLUTION TEAMThe interplay between delay and dissipation was well illustrated in a recent cross-border dispute handled by our firm involving an application for worldwide freezing relief. Although the application ultimately failed on a number of grounds, it also highlighted an important point that is sometimes overlooked: allegations of dissipation are significantly harder to sustain where a defendant’s conduct over an extended period demonstrates an ongoing commitment to maintaining substantial assets and business interests within the jurisdiction. In appropriate cases, prolonged delay coupled with objective evidence that is inconsistent with any intention to place assets beyond reach can materially weaken an applicant’s case on dissipation, quite apart from any other issues that may arise.Presenting the evidence cumulativelyUltimately, the Court will consider the evidence cumulatively. It is rarely helpful to isolate each fact and ask whether it is, by itself, sufficient. The better approach is to consider whether the facts, taken together, show a coherent pattern of conduct from which the real risk may properly be inferred.The supporting affidavit should therefore explain how the documents, conduct and timing fit together. It should not merely list allegations. Nor should it seek to paint the defendant as dishonest in the abstract. The task is to show, by reference to solid evidence, that there is a real risk that the defendant will deal with assets in a manner that may frustrate enforcement.ConclusionA freezing injunction remains an important tool for protecting an applicant’s interests in the event of a successful judgment. The focus is on the quality, rather than the volume, of the evidence. What carries weight are conduct and patterns that, with specificity and coherence, point to unjustified dealings outside the ordinary course. The exercise is not to depict the defendant as dishonest in the abstract, but to demonstrate that the nature of the alleged dishonesty has a real and material bearing on how the defendant is likely to deal with his assets pending judgment. The balance lies in putting forward sufficient material to persuade the Court, without overreaching beyond what the evidence can properly support.Oon & Bazul LLCOon & Bazul is a leading dispute resolution law firm in Singapore, recognised for complex, cross-border and high-value commercial disputes. We act for corporates, financial institutions, shareholders and high-net-worth individuals across matters including shipping and admiralty, shareholder and joint venture conflicts, fraud and asset recovery, and cryptocurrency and digital asset disputes, and we are frequently instructed for urgent interlocutory relief (including freezing orders and other injunctive remedies) in support of multi-jurisdictional litigation and arbitration. As one of Singapore's largest conflict-free firms, we deliver practical, commercially grounded advice with speed, discretion and strategic execution. 

Oon & Bazul has announced a strategic refinement of its firmwide direction, intensifying its focus as a conflict-free, high-value disputes powerhouse. This move represents a natural progression of the firm’s longstanding leadership in high-stakes commercial litigation and arbitration across Asia and beyond. In a recent feature titled “Repositioning for Precision – Oon & Bazul’s Strategic Shift Toward Disputes Leadership”, Managing Partner Bazul Ashhab shared insights into this transformation. The decision, he noted, was driven by increasing demand for dedicated dispute resolution lawyers with the ability to navigate today’s fast-moving, high-value, cross-border disputes. “Uncertainty is where the best litigation firms thrive,” Bazul said. “We saw an opportunity to go against the grain. Drop the full-service model and focus entirely on what we do best: high-stakes disputes. That's what global clients want: not another generalist, but a litigation specialist.” By moving away from the traditional full-service model, Oon & Bazul has further structured itself to operate free from internal conflicts. This enables it to collaborate seamlessly with domestic and international firms — positioning the firm not as a competitor, but as a trusted partner to clients and law firms seeking focused, efficient, and expert dispute resolution. Internally, the firm has reinforced its leadership and realigned its teams for agility, accountability, and performance. Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Partner Joanna Yap now oversees and supports firmwide management, allowing Bazul to concentrate fully on legal strategies and client outcomes. The firm has also welcomed several senior hires from leading global firms, significantly enhancing its depth and capabilities. This refined positioning aligns not only with growing regional demand for sophisticated counsel capable of managing multi-jurisdictional challenges, but also with Singapore’s role as a global dispute resolution hub. As the volume and complexity of cross-border matters continue to grow, the need for nimble, senior-led dispute resolution practices with scalable infrastructure has never been more pressing. Oon & Bazul stands out by offering a rare combination: the independence of a boutique with the capacity and bench strength of a large-scale operation. This unique platform has already attracted significant mandates and long-term alliances with international counsel, strengthening the firm’s reputation as one of Asia’s most effective and conflict-free high-value disputes specialists. Read the full feature here: https://www.legalbusinessonline.com/node/87082 Oon & Bazul is one of Singapore’s leading independent law firms, widely recognised for its strength in dispute resolution. With a deep bench of experienced dispute management lawyers and complex litigation lawyers, the firm is frequently instructed in high-value commercial disputes, cross-border arbitrations, fraud investigations, and asset recovery matters. To find out more, visit https://oonbazul.com

AUTHORSBazul AshhabDispute Resolution TeamLionel ChanDispute Resolution TeamLi Ke XinDispute Resolution TeamAn ex parte without notice application is made to the Court without prior notice being given to the opposing party. The judge therefore hears only one side of the story. To address that imbalance, the law requires the applicant to disclose all material facts, including those that may weaken the application.Although the rule is well established, breaches are still common. Many arise from oversight, poor presentation, or a mistaken view of what must be disclosed. This article explains the duty in practical terms, highlights common mistakes, and sets out how they can be avoided.What Does "Full and Frank Disclosure" Mean?The duty requires the applicant to give the court a fair and complete account of the relevant facts.The Court of Appeal in The "Vasiliy Golovnin" [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 explained that a judge hearing an ex parte application does not have the benefit of opposing arguments and may therefore not be fully alert to the risks of the order sought (at [85]). For that reason, the applicant must ensure the court is properly informed.In practical terms, this includes:Material factsAll facts and matters which could or would reasonably be taken into account by the judge in deciding whether to grant the application (see Poon Kng Siang v Tan Ah Keng [1992] 1 SLR 562).The other party's likely positionArguments or defences that are realistic in light of the known facts (see Bahtera Offshore (M) Sdn Bhd v Sim Kok Beng [2009] 4 SLR(R) 365).Facts that reasonable inquiries would have revealedThe duty extends beyond matters actually known to the applicant, to "such additional facts which he would have known if he had made proper inquiries" (see Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786).The court should be able to understand the key points from the affidavit itself, rather than having to search through supporting documents.Common Mistakes1. Burying key facts in exhibitsA common error is to exhibit large volumes of documents without explaining what matters. In The Vasiliy Golovnin, the Court of Appeal noted that the supporting affidavit constituted "an impressive 'tome' of some 400 pages" yet the narrative text "only amounted to a miserly 11 pages" (at [95]).2. Failing to deal with the other side's caseApplicants sometimes present only their own account and leave out what the other party has said or is likely to say. This can give a distorted picture.In Bahtera, the court emphasised that the duty "includes defences which are likely to be raised" (at [20]).3. Omitting inconvenient factsFacts that weaken the application are sometimes left out. Courts take a serious view of this, particularly where the omission affects the overall picture. In Bahtera, the court found that the plaintiff had "deliberately suppressed and distorted material facts" by, among other things, failing to disclose a court order staying proceedings bound the plaintiff and that the scheme of arrangement had been approved by majority of unsecured creditors.4. Inadequate inquiriesThe duty covers facts that would have been discovered through reasonable checks. In Tay Long Kee, the court made clear that a failure to make proper inquiries will not excuse non-disclosure.Consequences of BreachA breach may lead to the order being set aside. The court retains a discretion and will consider factors such as the seriousness of the omission and its impact on the application (see Tay Long Kee and Bahtera).Where the non-disclosure is deliberate, the court is much more likely to discharge the order. In many cases, this will be decisive regardless of the underlying merits.CASE IN FOCUS · DISPUTE RESOLUTION TEAM LED BY MR BAZUL ASHHABIn a recent matter, our dispute resolution team successfully applied to set aside an ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction and receivership order obtained against our client, effectively dismantling what the court had initially been led to believe was a clear-cut case of fraud. The claimant was an institutional fund with significant resources and connections. Our client was a single individual. The asymmetry was stark, and the stakes could not have been higher. What made the matter particularly demanding was that the claimant had obtained the injunction by failing to disclose documents that fundamentally reframed the commercial relationship between the parties. Those documents did not surface on their own. It was our team’s tireless work to uncover them, and our client who bore the burden of shifting a narrative that had already taken hold with the court. That work paid off. The court set aside the injunction and receivership order for material non-disclosure. The Appellate Division subsequently refused permission to appeal, affirming that a claimant must disclose evidence it could reasonably have anticipated the defendant would rely on, and that it is not sufficient to exhibit documents without drawing the court’s attention to the details that matter. The decision is a reminder that material non-disclosure may be fatal to an ex parte application, and that the duty of full and frank disclosure to the court is absolute.Practical GuidancePractitioners preparing ex parte applications should observe the following guidelines.–        Include both favourable and unfavourable facts.–        Ensure the affidavit contains the key points.–        Address reasonable defences that the other party may take.–        Avoid vague descriptions or selective disclosures.–        Verify important facts before filing.–        Read the affidavit from the other side's perspective and identify any omissions.Ex parte applications place significant responsibility on the applicant. The applicant must ensure that the court is able to make a fair decision on a complete picture of the facts.The risk of breaching the duty to make full and frank disclosure will be decreased with careful preparation, clear presentation, and a willingness to address weaker elements of the case.Oon & Bazul LLCOon & Bazul is a leading dispute resolution law firm in Singapore, recognised for complex, cross-border and high-value commercial disputes. We act for corporates, financial institutions, shareholders and high-net-worth individuals across matters including shipping and admiralty, shareholder and joint venture conflicts, fraud and asset recovery, and cryptocurrency and digital asset disputes, and we are frequently instructed for urgent interlocutory relief (including freezing orders and other injunctive remedies) in support of multi-jurisdictional litigation and arbitration. As one of Singapore's largest conflict-free firms, we deliver practical, commercially grounded advice with speed, discretion and strategic execution.

Oon & Bazul LLP is pleased to note that our Managing Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution, Bazul Ashhab, has contributed an article in the Singapore Law Gazette titled “Evolving Landscape of Dispute Resolution in a More Cost-Sensitive and Complex Commercial Environment.” In the article, Bazul examines the convergence of increasing commercial complexity, heightened client sensitivity to cost, and the growing integration of artificial intelligence in dispute resolution practice. He considers the structural limitations of traditional time-based billing models, and the corresponding shift towards fee arrangements that more accurately reflect strategic input, judgment, and outcomes.   The piece further explores evolving team dynamics, including flatter organisational structures and supervised AI-enabled workflows. These developments, he suggests, allow junior practitioners to assume greater analytical and supervisory responsibilities earlier in their careers, while maintaining the rigour and professional standards expected in complex disputes.   Bazul also analyses the emergence of collaborative “specialist counsel” models, through which smaller and mid-sized firms are able to deploy targeted expertise without sacrificing continuity of client relationships. These models reflect a broader recalibration within the profession, one that privileges precision, coordination, and subject-matter depth over scale, particularly in the context of multi-jurisdictional and technically demanding disputes.   Drawing on his extensive experience advising across the Energy, Commodities, Shipping, and Blockchain & Cryptocurrency sectors, including high-stakes shareholder conflicts and high-value “bet-the-company” disputes, Bazul has consistently demonstrated how disciplined strategy, structured collaboration, and the judicious use of technology can deliver successful outcomes in complex disputes.   This expertise has earned him recognition as a leading dispute resolution lawyer in Singapore, including a place among Singapore’s Top 100 Lawyers in the ABLJ 2026 A-List, and rankings in both the Chambers Asia-Pacific Guide 2026 and The Legal 500 Asia Pacific.   We invite you to read the full article here.  

Lye Yu Min, a well-known Restructuring & Insolvency (R&I) Lawyer in Singapore has joined Oon & Bazul LLP to further bolster its R&I Practice.   Yu Min was previously with the R&I team of a Big 4 firm, where he acted in some of Singapore’s largest and most complex insolvency matters in recent years, and brings substantial experience across the full spectrum of contentious and non-contentious debtor- and creditor-side engagements. The R&I team at Oon & Bazul LLP possesses an intimate understanding of the sensitivities and cultural nuances that accompany restructuring and insolvency matters within an Asian context. They have a track record of providing pragmatic, sensible advice and risk analysis, high quality client management skills, and a refreshing sense of calm under pressure. The team advises distressed companies, as well as liquidators and trustees, on restructuring matters in Singapore. The team has extensive experience in advising and acting for multinational companies, distressed and special situations funds, financial institutions and insolvency practitioners, such as judicial managers, scheme managers, chief restructuring officers and liquidators. The firm’s “conflict-free and independent” status ensures that they are able to provide robust and steadfast representation in high-stakes matters. The practice is led by Keith Han, a highly experienced lawyer who is particularly adept at handling cross-border mandates. When asked about the expansion, Keith commented: “We are excited to expand our practice area and welcome Yu Min to our team. This expansion is a testament to our commitment to meeting the diverse needs of our clients in this ever-evolving global economy and to provide them with exceptional legal solutions”. Commenting on the expansion, Oon & Bazul’s Managing Partner, Bazul Ashhab, stated “Cross-border Restructuring & Insolvency is one of the most rapidly expanding areas in the Singapore legal industry, and this strategic hire will not only enhance the firm’s capabilities but will also reinforce our commitment to delivering exceptional legal services in this critically growing sector.” To find out more about the firm’s Restructuring and Insolvency practice, please click here: https://oonbazul.com/restructuring-insolvency/.  

Priscilla Lua, Partner in Oon & Bazul’s Dispute Resolution practice, has been appointed as an Asia-Pacific (APAC) Member of the Young Singapore International Arbitration Centre (YSIAC) Council – the leadership body driving SIAC’s initiatives for the next generation of arbitration professionals. This appointment reflects both Priscilla’s commitment to the development of international arbitration in Asia and Oon & Bazul’s growing regional presence as a leading disputes-focused law firm. It is a key milestone in the firm’s vision to build Singapore’s largest conflict-free disputes practice, known for legal excellence and cross-border capability. As an APAC Member of the YSIAC Council, Priscilla will play an active role in curating region-wide programming and strategic initiatives aimed at shaping the future of arbitration in Asia. Priscilla has deep expertise in international arbitration and commercial litigation, her practice spanning a number of areas including projects & infrastructure, oil & gas, shareholder disputes, joint venture disputes, and employment. She acts as counsel in court and international arbitration proceedings and has experience with various institutional rules such as ICC, SIAC, LCIA, HKIAC, UNCITRAL as well as ad-hoc arbitrations. Commenting on her appointment, Priscilla said: “I am honoured to serve as a Regional Member of the YSIAC Council for APAC. YSIAC plays a vital role in shaping the next generation of arbitration practitioners, and I look forward to collaborating with fellow practitioners to drive meaningful progress in the arbitration landscape and in the legal industry across the region.” Her appointment is a testament to the strength of Oon & Bazul’s arbitration team and reinforces the firm’s commitment to fostering legal talent, advancing innovation in dispute resolution, and contributing meaningfully to the international legal landscape.

AUTHORSLionel ChanInternational ArbitrationBeatrice WeeInternational ArbitrationArbitration may sometimes be associated with lengthy proceedings, protracted document production, and costly hearings. Where some or all claims at issue clearly lack merit, however, there is a mechanism that allows parties to bring about a swift resolution to such claims (whether in whole or in part) without going through the full arbitral process, sparing them the time, cost, and resources that a complete evidentiary hearing (i.e., the hearing at which evidence is presented and tested through cross-examination) would otherwise demand.The following institutional rules expressly provide for the early dismissal (or early determination/disposition) of part or all of an unmeritorious claim or defence:•     Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules 2025 (Rule 47);•     International Chamber of Commerce Rules 2026 (Article 30);•     Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Administered Arbitration Rules 2024 (Article 43);•     London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2020 (Article 22.1(viii)); and•     International Centre for Dispute Resolution International Arbitration Rules 2021 (Article 23).Extracts of the relevant provisions are set out in the Endnote below.The purpose of the early dismissal mechanism is to allow a tribunal to dismiss claims (often on the ground that they are manifestly without legal merit) on the basis of legal submissions, without having to first undergo a full evidentiary hearing.The early dismissal procedure may generally be appropriately invoked in plain and obvious cases where either the claim or the defence is undoubtedly legally unsustainable. Choosing not to invoke the early dismissal mechanism would mean that in some cases, unnecessary issues are included at the evidentiary hearing, thereby prolonging proceedings and increasing the costs and resources that parties must commit to a dispute that could otherwise have been resolved far sooner.In practice, several features tend to signal that a claim or defence may be a suitable candidate for early dismissal. These include where: the dispute turns on a question of law rather than on contested fact; the material facts are admitted or otherwise not in dispute; the position advanced is contradicted by the clear terms of the contract or by the documentary record; the claim is plainly time-barred on the undisputed facts; the case is untenable in light of binding authority; or the tribunal plainly lacks jurisdiction over the claim. A useful working test is whether the tribunal could decide the point without needing to hear and test oral evidence. Where that is so, the claim or defence is a strong candidate for early dismissal.Early Dismissal Need Not Resolve The Whole Case To Be WorthwhileAs noted above, early dismissal determinations can resolve a dispute in whole or in part. Parties may hesitate to pursue early dismissal because certain issues, such as the precise quantum of sums payable or peripheral arguments, remain contested. However, it is a misconception to assume that an early dismissal application is only worthwhile if it can resolve the entire dispute. The fact that some issues remain live does not prevent a tribunal from granting early dismissal in respect of claims or defences that are clearly without merit. In such cases, a tribunal may issue a partial award that decides the clear-cut issues immediately, while leaving the remaining issues (which require the tribunal to make determinations relating to disputed facts) to be decided after the full evidentiary hearing. Even a partial resolution can meaningfully narrow the scope of the issues to be resolved through subsequent stages of the arbitration, correspondingly reducing the time and resources that the parties and tribunal must devote to the remaining issues.This is illustrated in DBO v DBP [2023] SGHC(I) 21, where the Singapore International Commercial Court upheld a partial award made pursuant to an early dismissal application under the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules 2016. The tribunal in that case dismissed the claimants' claim that a facility agreement had been discharged by frustration on the basis that it was manifestly without legal merit.Importantly, the tribunal did not purport to resolve every issue in the arbitration through the early dismissal. The partial award expressly left certain issues for determination in due course, including the claimants' argument that a particular clause of the facility agreement was unenforceable as a penalty clause. The Singapore International Commercial Court affirmed this approach and dismissed the application to set aside the partial award.The takeaway is that a party should not be deterred from bringing an early dismissal application simply because the application may not dispose of the entirety of the dispute. Where a core claim or defence is manifestly without legal merit, that issue can be disposed of at the earliest opportunity.It is also worth emphasising what such a determination is worth to the rest of the case. A partial award on early dismissal is not merely a preliminary or provisional view. It is a final and binding determination of the issues it decides, and once it is rendered the tribunal cannot reopen those issues at the later hearing. That has two consequences for the balance of the dispute. First, the dismissed issues fall away entirely, rendering it unnecessary to undergo any further procedures that would otherwise have been required to address them (including document disclosure, and submission and testing of evidence). Second, the findings in the partial award (whether of law, or of admitted or undisputed fact) will stand as the settled framework within which the remaining issues are determined. The early determination therefore does more than simply remove discrete issues from the case. It can, for example, resolve a threshold question that governs what follows, including by fixing liability so that only quantum remains, or settling a point of construction that shapes the issues left to be tried.CASE IN FOCUS · INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION TEAMIn a recent arbitration under the SIAC Rules, our international arbitration team led by our Managing Partner Mr Bazul Ashhab applied for the early dismissal of claims brought against our clients, on the basis that those claims were manifestly without legal merit. When the opposing party made an unexpected admission during the proceedings, our team moved to supplement the application, using that admission to target the substantive damages claim itself.What made the matter demanding was the breadth of the resistance. Across several rounds of submissions, the opposing party ran arguments on contractual interpretation, the incorporation of terms, penalty clauses, unfair contract terms, consumer protection legislation, and estoppel. Each was met and answered in full, in written submissions and at the hearing. Not every issue stood to be resolved at that stage, and disputes over the precise computation of sums remained. But that is what the early dismissal mechanism is built for. Where the legal merit of a claim can be tested on submissions alone, resolving the core liability question early narrows the scope of the arbitration and spares the parties the cost of a full hearing.Practical GuidanceFor businesses and individuals embroiled in arbitration, the commercial benefits of early dismissal, measured against what a full arbitration would otherwise demand, are significant:1.  Cost savings.  The heaviest costs in an arbitration are usually incurred in preparing for and running the evidentiary hearing. These include document production and disclosure, factual witness statements and expert reports, and the hearing itself, together with the associated tribunal, counsel, and expert fees and the management time absorbed along the way. Because an early dismissal application is decided on legal submissions alone, it avoids these costs in respect of the issues it disposes of.An early dismissal application carries its own cost, incurred on top of any later hearing on the issues that remain. But an issue argued on submissions costs far less than the same issue taken to a full hearing. Where the application disposes of the whole claim, the hearing is avoided. Where it disposes of part of the issues in dispute, the residual hearing is shorter and narrower, and correspondingly involves fewer issues, less disclosure, and fewer witnesses. As such, substantial cost savings is achieved even though a hearing still follows. The tribunal also has a discretion to award costs, and a party that succeeds on a well-chosen application can ordinarily expect to recover some or all of the costs of that application.2.  Time efficiency.  A full arbitration can take years, whereas early dismissal applications are typically decided within months. Where the early dismissal application disposes of some (but not all) of the issues in the arbitration, this can decrease the amount of time required for the subsequent stages of the arbitration by narrowing the scope of those stages, including document disclosure and the evidentiary hearing. Beyond the legal spend required, a full arbitration may tie up management time, internal counsel, and other business resources for the duration of the proceedings. Disposing of core issues early in the arbitration frees these resources for the business far sooner than would be possible if the arbitration had to run its full course.3.  Certainty and risk management.  For a respondent facing a large or inflated claim, early dismissal contains exposure at an early stage and denies the claimant the use of meritless claims as bargaining chips. A ruling that a party's core case lacks merit also shifts the dynamics of the dispute and signals the likely eventual outcome, sharpening the incentive to settle what remains on reasonable terms.Parties considering an early dismissal application should keep the following points in mind:1.  An early dismissal application need not resolve every issue in the dispute.  Where the core claim or defence is manifestly without legal merit, the application can and should be brought, even if other issues will need to be determined in due course. The tribunal has the power to render a partial award on the issues that are ripe for determination and to reserve the remaining issues for a subsequent phase.2.  The standard is that the claim or defence must be manifestly without legal merit, meaning it must be undoubtedly legally unsustainable.  The tribunal must be able to reach this conclusion on the basis of the pleadings and legal submissions, without the need for a full evidentiary hearing. Where the underlying facts are admitted or not in dispute, the threshold is more likely to be met. Where the issues in dispute are legal (and not factual) in nature, it is likely that these can be resolved in an early dismissal application.3.   An early dismissal application should be brought as soon as the basis for it becomes apparent.  An appropriate juncture for making an early dismissal application would typically be shortly after the close of pleadings. Parties should also remain vigilant for admissions (e.g., made by witnesses) that would provide any grounds for early dismissal of claims or defences.ConclusionEarly dismissal is not an all-or-nothing remedy. It is a flexible and commercially valuable tool that parties can use to bring claims that are clearly without merit to an early close, even where other issues in the dispute remain to be resolved. For businesses and individuals facing meritless claims in arbitration, the savings in time, cost, and commercial certainty that an early dismissal application can deliver should not be overlooked.Endnote: Examples of institutional provisions for early dismissalArbitration RulesProvisionGroundsSingapore International Arbitration Centre Rules 2025Rule 47A party may apply to the Tribunal for the early dismissal of a claim or defence where: (a) a claim or defence is manifestly without legal merit; or (b) a claim or defence is manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.International Chamber of Commerce Rules 2026Article 30Any party may apply to the arbitral tribunal for the early determination of one or more claims or defences on the grounds that: a. such claims or defences are manifestly without merit; or b. such claims or defences are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction.Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Administered Arbitration Rules 2024Article 43The arbitral tribunal shall have the power, at the request of any party and after consulting with all other parties, to decide one or more points of law or fact by way of early determination procedure, on the basis that: (a) such points of law or fact are manifestly without merit; or (b) such points of law or fact are manifestly outside the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction; or (c) even if such points of law or fact are submitted by another party and are assumed to be correct, no award could be rendered in favour of that party.London Court of International Arbitration Rules 2020Article 22.1(viii)The Arbitral Tribunal shall have the power, upon the application of any party or upon its own initiative, but in either case only after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity to state their views and upon such terms (as to costs and otherwise) as the Arbitral Tribunal may decide, to determine that any claim, defence, counterclaim, cross-claim, defence to counterclaim or defence to cross-claim is manifestly outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, or is inadmissible or manifestly without merit; and where appropriate to issue an order or award to that effect (an "Early Determination").International Centre for Dispute Resolution International Arbitration Rules 2021Article 23A party may request leave from the arbitral tribunal to submit an application for disposition of any issue presented by any claim or counterclaim in advance of the hearing on the merits ("early disposition"). The tribunal shall allow a party to submit an application for early disposition if it determines that the application (a) has a reasonable possibility of succeeding, (b) will dispose of, or narrow, one or more issues in the case, and (c) that consideration of the application is likely to be more efficient or economical than leaving the issue to be determined with the merits.Oon & Bazul LLCOon & Bazul is a leading firm in Singapore, with a highly regarded International Arbitration practice, recognised for complex, cross border and high-value commercial disputes. We act for corporates, financial institutions, shareholders and high net-worth individuals across matters including shipping and admiralty, shareholder and joint venture conflicts, fraud and asset recovery, and cryptocurrency and digital asset disputes. We are frequently instructed on complex, multi-jurisdictional matters, including international arbitration and related court proceedings, as well as urgent interlocutory relief such as freezing orders and other injunctive remedies. As one of Singapore's largest conflict-free firms, we deliver practical, commercially grounded advice with speed, discretion and strategic execution.

Oon & Bazul LLP is pleased to announce the appointment of Perry Elizabeth Wong as a Partner in its Dispute Resolution Practice. Perry brings with her over eight years of post-qualification experience, strengthening the firm’s litigation and arbitration capabilities. Perry is a dual-qualified lawyer, admitted as an Advocate & Solicitor in Singapore and an Attorney & Counsellor-at-Law in New York. Her expertise spans complex civil and commercial litigation, international arbitration, white-collar criminal matters, and regulatory advisory work. Prior to joining Oon & Bazul, Perry trained and practiced at a leading local law firm, representing high-net-worth individuals and corporations across industries such as private wealth management, banking, energy, and consumer goods. She has handled matters before all levels of the Singapore Courts and has acted in significant cases, such as a US$64 million High Court trial concerning breaches of fiduciary duties and tort, securing favorable outcomes on appeal. She has also represented clients in international arbitration under leading institutions, including SIAC and LCIA. In the realm of white-collar criminal defense, she has worked on high-profile cases, including Singapore’s S$3 billion money laundering case and the multi-billion-dollar Wirecard fraud case. Bazul Ashhab, Managing Partner and Head of Dispute Resolution, welcomed Perry to the firm: “Perry’s broad experience in both litigation and arbitration makes her a valuable addition to our team. Her expertise in handling high-stakes matters will further enhance our ability to provide top-tier legal solutions to our clients.” Her addition underscores Oon & Bazul’s ongoing commitment to attracting top legal talent and to better serving clients across diverse sectors in their navigation of complex, cross-border disputes.

Elan Krishna, a former Partner at the Singapore office of the magic circle law firm Clifford Chance, has joined Oon & Bazul LLP to enhance its Dispute Resolution practice with a particular emphasis on international arbitration. Elan’s timely arrival enhances the firm’s capacity to handle the surge in the high-value instructions that the firm is seeing. The current geopolitical dynamics are resulting in an uptick in complex-commercial disputes, and his addition will support the firm’s response to their clients’ needs. Elan has acted for clients in a wide variety of high value and complex arbitration matters, with a particular focus on arbitrations involving allegations of fraud, corruption or illegality. Elan has particular expertise in disputes arising in the aviation and logistics sector. He has been recommended in Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2019 with clients praising him as 'relentlessly productive'. Elan is a board member of the ICDR's Young & International Group and a committee member of the Law Society of Singapore's International Relations Committee. He also has an active litigation practice centered on complex commercial appeals and cross-jurisdictional insolvency matters. The International Arbitration practice at Oon & Bazul LLP, has a fantastic track record in disputes relating to company law, international trade, banking, trade finance, shareholders’ disputes, insurance, oil & gas, commodities, insolvency, shipping, derivative actions, fraud and asset recovery, across jurisdictions including Singapore, Dubai, London, Hong Kong, New York, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, India, Thailand, Indonesia and China. The team’s experience includes both ad-hoc arbitrations as well as those under the rules of the ICC, SIAC, LCIA, HKIAC, AIAC and CIETAC. Aside from acting on arbitration mandates, the firm is also actively involved in several arbitration related court proceedings such as setting aside and enforcement of arbitration awards before the Singapore courts. Commenting on the expansion, Oon & Bazul’s Managing Partner and Head of the Dispute Resolution Practice, Bazul Ashhab, said, 'With our firm already highly recognized in the market, I am pleased to welcome Elan, whose tenure at Clifford Chance and extensive experience in high-value, complex disputes and international arbitration will be a strong complement to our team. His arrival adds to the number of our senior lawyers, as we continue delivering the exceptional quality of work our clients expect. Elan will also play a key role in mentoring our junior lawyers, aligning with our commitment to develop talent and meet our clients’ evolving needs in a dynamic global economy.'" To find out more about the firm’s International Arbitration practice, please click here: https://oonbazul.com/international-arbitration/  

Oon & Bazul LLP is pleased to welcome Fazlina Sapuan as a Partner in the firm’s Shipping & International Trade practice. Fazlina brings with her over 12 years of wide-ranging experience spanning international law firms, International Group (IG) P&I Clubs, and a leading dry bulk shipping company. She is dual-qualified in England & Wales and Singapore, enhancing the firm's cross-border capabilities and reinforcing its position as a market leader in shipping and international trade disputes (ranked Band 1 in Chambers & Partners). Fazlina's career has been marked by a wide breadth of expertise in both contentious and non-contentious maritime matters. She trained and qualified at Oon & Bazul LLP where she focused on wet shipping matters. She eventually went on to work at an international law firm, followed by a market-leading IG P&I Club in the specialist vessel segment, including offshore support vessels. Most recently, she worked with a listed Scandinavian dry bulk shipping company with a commercially controlled fleet of over 100 vessels. Fazlina’s training and practice in wet shipping which includes having worked on matters involving collisions, allisions, fire on board, hijacking and piracy and hull and machinery damage, coupled with her experience working at the Club and in-house gives her valuable insight and experience in real-time casualty management. In addition, her time in the commercial shipping sector, combined with her legal background, ensures that she is able to offer clients a clear understanding on the practical realities of  global shipping operations. Her understanding of the shipping sectors’ commercial relationships and various competing interests allows her to deliver commercial and effective legal solutions that is scenario-specific and tailored to the clients’ needs. With her international experience and commercial insight, Fazlina is well-positioned to support the firm’s clients in navigating the evolving challenges of the shipping industry, including sanctions compliance, ESG risks, and the digital transformation of maritime logistics. Managing Partner Bazul Ashhab commented on the appointment: “I am delighted to welcome Fazlina to the partnership. She adds depth to our shipping and international trade capabilities and reflects our continued commitment to offering our clients commercially-attuned legal advice.” Prakaash Silvam, Head of the Shipping & International Trade Practice, added: “Fazlina’s arrival coincides with increasing volume of instructions we are receiving and the continued growth of our market leading shipping practice. I am certain that she will be a great asset to our practice and clients, especially in the current climate of geopolitical tension.”   Fazlina’s appointment signals Oon & Bazul’s continued investment in top-tier talent and its strategic focus on deepening its presence in key practice areas critical to the region’s trade and commercial infrastructure. Find out more about the firm’s Shipping and International Trade practices.