Key Features of the Singapore Convention on Mediation

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements resulting from Mediation, also known as the “Singapore Convention on Mediation” applies to international settlement agreements resulting from mediation (“settlement agreement”). It was adopted in December 2018 and establishes a harmonised legal framework for the right to invoke settlement agreements as well as for their enforcement. It is an instrument for the facilitation of international trade and the promotion of mediation as an alternative and effective method of resolving trade disputes. Since it is a binding international instrument, the Convention is expected to bring certainty and stability to the international framework on mediation, thereby contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), mainly the SDG 16. As of 7 August 2019, the Convention is open for signature by States and regional economic integration organisations (or the “Parties”). On the first day alone 46 countries, including the United States, China and Singapore signed the Convention, which concentrates on enhancing the enforceability of settlement agreements that arise out of mediation. The Convention attempts to be mediation’s equivalent of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, and many hopes and aspirations are pinned to it as regards the widening of mediation as a mechanism for dispute resolution. 

The mediation process allows parties to try settle a dispute using the assistance of a neutral third person. The third party neutral person acts as the mediator. The mediator does not possess any authority to impose a decision on the Parties and can only to help them to agree a mutually-acceptable resolution. The Convention, under Article 2(3), defines mediation broadly, in other words it is as a way “to reach amicable settlement of their dispute with the assistance of a third person or persons (‘the mediator’) lacking the authority to impose a solution upon the parties”. So long as the settlement is captured by this definition, the Convention applies irrespective of whether the process of settlement is called a “mediation”. Similarly, no requirement exists for the mediation be administered by a mediation institution or conducted by an accredited mediator. The drafting of the provision is deliberately wide and intends to increase Convention’s appeal by avoiding a high level of prescriptiveness and maintaining the flexibility which makes mediation attractive. The Convention only applies to settlements arising from commercial mediation.

Rubin and New Cap: Massive UK Supreme Court Ruling on International Insolvency, Enforcement and Jurisdiction

Rubin & Anor (Joint Receivers and Managers of the Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance SA & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 895 and New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd & Anor v Grant & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 971 were interesting cases and threw up important issues in international insolvency law. The UK Supreme Court has decided these cases as Rubin & Anor v Eurofinance SA & Ors [2012] UKSC 46. Broadly, the court’s judgment shed much needed light whether a foreign court’s order or judgment to set aside anterior transactions such as preferences or transactions at an undervalue (or avoidance proceedings) were (1) recognisable and enforceable in England and Wales and (2) enforceable through the international assistance provision of the UN Convention on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”) Model Law – which is implemented through the generally applicable Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) – or the assistance provisions of section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“IA86”) which applied to a limited number of countries including Australia. The Supreme Court held that the Dicey Rule, set out below at the end of this post, which arises from the operation of common law and  Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933  (“the 1933 Act”), applied to foreign judgments in avoidance proceedings in insolvency.

Background in the Court of Appeal

I. Rubin & Anor (Joint Receivers and Managers of the Consumers Trust) v Eurofinance SA & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 895

Rubin and others, the appellants (A), were receivers who appealed against Nicholas Strauss QC’s [2009] EWHC 2129 (Ch) decision to dismiss their application for enforcement of a New York judgment against Eurofinance and others, the respondents (R) who cross-appealed against the recognition of the New York proceedings as foreign main proceedings and the recognition of the appointment therein of A as foreign representatives. R had created a trust, operating under English law, and conducted a sales promotion scheme in Canada and the US. Money from the scheme received by the trust was distributed to R and others.