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

Business man document
Addressing directors’ personal safety
The Companies Act 1993 (CA93) currently requires all company directors to make their residential addresses available as a matter of public record.  However, in recent times, incidents of stalking and...
Wielding the Secateurs: The High Court’s Pruning of Potentially Disruptive Decisions
Every now and then courts have to self-correct to prevent errant off-shoots of legal reasoning advancing into the law.  In the decision, IAG New Zealand Ltd v Degen [2024] NZHC 397, the High Court t...
19.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
UK Supreme Court: Are collateral warranties considered construction contracts?
The UK Supreme Court recently released Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP (formerly Simply Construct (UK) LLP) [2024] UKSC 23 determining that a collateral warranty used in the constr...
17.09.2024 Posted in Construction & Disputes
shutterstock
Bowen case part 2 – the ins and outs of the determination
In our last article, we wrote about what protected disclosures are and who can make them. In this article, we discuss the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determination, Bowen v Bank of New ...
13.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

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