Kavitha Gupta's blog

Step-in to the real world? (How to ensure that your outsourcing step-in rights are effective and enforceable) Morrison & Foerster LLP prev next United Kingdom   Outsourcing service providers frequently complain that customers demand rights and remedies which are simply unrealistic given the nature of the services. A prime example is when a customer insists that its outsourcing contract include broad “step-in” rights that allow the customer to take over service delivery if there is a service failure (or even an imminent risk of a service failure). In our experience, step-in rights are an area where a healthy dose of realism would benefit negotiations and result in a better contract. Over recent years, step-in rights have become a standard remedy in outsourcing deals (particularly, in regulated industries such as financial services). However, all too often, step-in rights are treated as boilerplate or included in contracts as part of a box-checking ex

Punitive damages awarded for breach of contract Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP prev next Singapore December 7 2015 Introduction Ordinarily, damages for breach of contract are compensatory in nature. However, certain jurisdictions have recognised the concept of punitive damages for breach of contract, where the breach is so oppressive that additional damages are awarded as a form of „punishment‟. In the recent case of Ai rtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd [2015] SGHC 307, the Singapore High Court confirmed that punitive damages are in fact available for breach of contract in Singapore law. The Plaintiff in this matter was successfully represented by Tan Chuan Thye S.C., Avinash Pradhan and Alyssa Leong of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. Punitive Damages The Plaintiff had purchased a 300 tonne reel drive unit (“ RDU ”) from the Defendant for offshore use. However, there was a major failure of the RDU, and after consider

Arbitrability of fraud in India Herbert Smith Freehills LLP prev next India December 2 2015 The decision of the Indian Supreme Court in Swiss Timing Limited v Organising Committee, 2010 Olympic Games, Delhi [1] (" Swiss Timing ") last year seemingly settled the legal position on whether claims involving allegations of fraud are arbitrable in India. The Supreme Court in Swiss Timing overruled the previous leading Supreme Court authority, N Radhakrishnan v Maestro Engineering [2] (" Radhakrishnan "), to hold that fraud allegations are capable of being adjudicated by arbitral tribunals. However, a number of recent Indian High Court decisions have taken apparently conflicting approaches to the issue and have raised questions on the authority of Swiss Timing to effectively overrule Radhakrishnan . The vexed question of arbitrability of fraud has thus been brought back to the forefront of Indian arbitration law. Moving back t