“As a matter of principle, sanctions should not impugn the validity of arbitration agreements because they affect the parties’ substantive contractual rights, not their consent to arbitrate. An arbitration agreement allocates adjudicative authority by identifying the forum through which those rights and obligations are to be determined. Sanctions, by contrast, regulate the legality, performance or consequences of the underlying contractual obligations rather than the parties’ agreement as to forum. Conflating these distinct functions would transform sanctions from rules governing commercial conduct into mechanisms capable of reallocating jurisdiction.”

These words were written by our Associate Director, Terence Yeo from his winning essay which just earned him the Christopher Bathurst Prize, awarded by Fountain Court Chambers in London, in collaboration with Singapore Academy of Law.

Open to full-time students and lawyers aged 30 and under, the competition assesses entries for their originality, critical analysis, clarity, persuasiveness and practicality. The judging panel comprised Stephen Moriarty KC of Fountain Court Chambers, Abraham Vergis, S.C. of Providence Law Asia LLC and Dr Sandra Booysen, Assistant Professor at the NUS Faculty of Law. The award was presented by Justice of the Court of Appeal Hri Kumar Nair.

Terence’s essay offers a functionalist framework for how sanctions should interact with the arbitral process at each stage, from jurisdiction to enforcement. It also represents the kind of original, practical thinking the next generation of lawyers needs to bring to the table.

As part of the award, Terence will undertake a fully funded two-week placement at Fountain Court Chambers, where he will have the opportunity to learn from and work alongside its barristers.

Read his full essay here: https://shorturl.at/gFHdg