That German-Singapore Lawyer
My review of Arbitration in Japan: A Practitioner’s Guide, edited by John Ribeiro and Lars Markert, has been published in the German Arbitration Journal (Zeitschrift für Schiedsverfahren): SchiedsVZ 2026, 133–134 (issue 3; subscription required). As the book itself is written for an international readership, here is my translation of the review into English.
In March 2026, I presented a paper at the 23rd International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators (ICMA XXIII) in Singapore on recovering the cost of preventing a loss from a contractual breach that has not yet happened. The paper has now been published, in expanded form, in the German transport law journal Transportrecht: ‘The Cost of Prevention – Expense Recovery in Maritime Logistics Under German Law, Correctly Applied’, TranspR 2026, 296–302 (issue 7–8) (subscription required).
My review of Adolf Peter’s book on EU sustainability law and supply chains has been published in the Asian International Arbitration Journal. I think it is worth your time, so I reproduce it here.
I had a very good time presenting a paper at the 23rd International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators (ICMA XXIII) yesterday: ‘Reimbursement of Damage Prevention Costs in Maritime Logistics in the Event of an Anticipated Breach of Duty According to (Correctly Applied) German Law’. For anyone interested, I am sharing the full paper (PDF) in a slightly expanded version: one paragraph of exactly 99 words at the very end that I had to cut from the conference version to meet the rigorous word limit, plus English translations of the relevant German statutory provisions in the footnotes.
When my dissertation came out late last year, a few colleagues asked why a work so focused on Singapore, where English is the language of the law, was written in German. Well, it was a German doctorate, plus the dissertation was intended as a contribution to the debate on commercial courts in Germany. That’s why.
Still, they had a point, so I put together an English summary: ‘Should a Dispute Be Brought to the Singapore International Commercial Court or to Arbitration?’
I’m pleased to share that it has now been published in this year’s Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International (ZZP Int (29) 2024, pp. 257–312). If the topic interests you, do have a look.
Hear ye, hear ye! The fifth edition of Handbuch Vertriebsrecht (Handbook of Distribution Law), edited by Martinek, Semler and Flohr, has been published. It’s a tome of 3,155 (plus LXXVII) pages that once again provides a systematic and detailed presentation of this area of law, both nationally (from a German perspective) and internationally. One of the new additions from my pen is a chapter on Singapore, which deals comprehensively with its commercial agency, authorised dealer, franchise and competition laws.
My doctoral dissertation has been published as an e‑book and in print. Its title translates as ‘SICC or Arbitration? A Comparison of Proceedings in the Singapore International Commercial Court with the Advantages and Disadvantages of International Arbitration Proceedings’. It does what it says on the tin, so here’s just a bit of background.
I was back in Kuala Lumpur for Asia ADR Week 2024 and an Oxford-style debate on the topic of ‘The Extent and Limitations of Arbitrators’ Discretionary Powers’.
Last weekend the Asia ADR Summit was held in Kuala Lumpur. I had the honour and pleasure of participating in an Oxford-style debate on the topic: ‘This House believes that “humanity” is dispensable in arbitration, and artificial intelligence will supplant arbitrators in the future’.
Here is my statement and my rebuttal.
If you know me, you know that I don’t always do things in life in the orthodox order. After passing my first state examination in law at the beginning of 2001, I wanted to do a doctorate. In fact, I had already made several preparations for it. But then life intervened and took me from Hamburg to Singapore. Which was fine, and I soon abandoned the idea of becoming a Doctor of Law and concentrated on my second state examination, then my career, and whatever else was happening in my life (which, as life goes, wasn’t all smooth sailing). A while ago, however, I picked up the idea again and pursued it further. Yesterday I was in Munich for my oral doctoral examination at Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU). I’m happy to report: I made it.
May courts or arbitral tribunals engage in the amicable settlement of disputes between parties? More specifically, may a Singapore court or arbitral tribunal actively do so? What do the inquisitorial processes mentioned in the law have to do with it?
I have set out my thoughts in an article that the German Arbitration Journal (SchiedsVZ) has just published in its September/October 2023 issue.
Supplemental: Kluwer Arbitration Blog has published a summary of the article.
A lawyer shall not live by arbitration alone (at least not this one). As much as I enjoy arbitration, I also enjoy advising clients in an area of law that has, over time, become a professional hobbyhorse: economic administrative law. This is the area of law that empowers or requires government agencies to monitor or intervene in the private sector. The economic administrative law of Singapore, in German: das Wirtschaftsverwaltungsrecht von Singapur. Repeat after me.
Singapore has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records, in a bid to get electronic bills of lading (eBOL) off the ground after previous efforts failed. The Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration has published the original English version of my article on the new law. Transportrecht, the transportation law journal, has published the German version.
Patrick’s blog supplemental. Have you ever checked your viewing history on Netflix or whatever else you turn to for entertainment on telly? I have, so here’s a list of all the new TV series I watched in 2020. It’s more than usual, on top of everything else that went down.
A lot went down in 2020. Bought and renovated an HDB flat. Became a CIArb fellow and an SMC-accredited mediator. Oh, and I got married. A short, personal end-of-year review sorted by theme.
An arbitral award made by an emergency arbitrator sitting in Singapore is enforceable in Singapore. The law is clear on this.
However, the law is less clear on foreign emergency awards. Are they enforceable in Singapore?
Facebook and Libra, that’s like the House of Medici on speed. The Medici family were merchants first. During the Italian Renaissance they became bankers, then princes. Then they produced four popes of the Catholic Church. It took them a few centuries to do all that. But in announcing Libra, Facebook is claiming cyber princedom (cyber papacy even?) barely fifteen years after its founding. No wonder the governments of today are stunned.
Facebook, unarguably one of the biggest overlords of cyberspace, has proposed a cryptocurrency: Libra.
That’s interesting. Why Facebook? What’s happening?
I was working for Samuel Seow Law Corporation when its founder and managing director assaulted female staff members in his office last year. When videos of the incident surfaced a few days ago, my phone was on fire. A few sensationalists were fishing for gossip (wrong number, guys), but the majority had an actual desire to talk. For the first time, I couldn’t answer everyone who contacted me in time. That’s why I wrote this post.
The Singapore Institute of Arbitrators invited me to debate the following motion: ‘This House Believes That Artificial Intelligence Will Have Replaced Arbitrators within Twenty-Five Years’. In short: can – will – algorithms replace arbitrators within a generation?
We were debating this last night. Here are my opening and closing statements.
After eight years of living in the Orchard area, and two years in Novena before that, I’ve moved to a more down-to-earth part of Singapore: Bugis. That once infamous district, which to this day retains its gruff character. I guess I was drawn to it to compensate for all these years in Atasland.
As of this week, German lawyers are required to use an electronic communication tool designed especially for them: the special electronic lawyers’ mailbox (besonderes elektronisches Anwaltspostfach or beA). The problem is that the beA is inherently insecure, so it seems better to avoid using it. This would include, if possible, not litigating before a German court if there’s a chance that the opponent or the court might use the beA in the proceedings. This seems all the more appropriate where there is a risk of snooping or foul play by the opponent or third parties, or where the stakes are high – and when aren’t they?
I don’t like how we use the term guerrilla tactics in international arbitration. Referring to guerrilla disapprovingly implies methods of traditional warfare are alright. Artillery or old-school tactical formations – okay. Sneaky ambushes or hit-and-run attacks – not okay.
Priyageetha Dia has gilded Singapore with gold foil, again. And a lot of people have called her urban art intervention illegal, again. But what if she and her art had been on safe legal ground all along? What if it wasn’t so clear whether the removal of her golden flags was legal or not?
This is my speech at the first Computational Law & Blockchain Festival – Singapore Node on 17 March 2018. In it, I tried to explain what initial coin offerings are, why governments all over the world eye them curiously, and how governments regulate them – if they regulate them. I also questioned why brick and mortar governments regulate something so digital.
Over lunch the in-house counsel of a tech company asked me whether I ever decline work. We were making small talk, but funny she should ask. Because I have indeed chosen not to work on one or the other initial coin offering or token sale lately.
I do what I do for a living, so I’m not prone to decline work by default. But these projects didn’t smell right.
Smart contracts are described as self-executing: how they are formed is how they will be performed. This is why some of us see no (or at least less) room for legal dispute over them.
It shouldn’t be this way. Where it’s efficient, it should be possible to breach a smart contract. Even though this may lead to a legal dispute.
Last Friday we were celebrating the official opening of our new office, arts and entertainment law firm that we are. This is the speech I gave before the party took off.
It was time for me to go diving again, so I betook myself to Christmas Island, this external territory of Australia in the Indian Ocean. Under water I encountered sharks, dolphins and other creatures of the sea. Above water I went hiking, climbing and birdwatching in honour of the words of someone very dear to me: ‘Take many pictures, do many things you don’t get to do in Singapore and remember each and every one of them.’
Was Priyageetha Dia’s golden staircase art or vandalism? Wrong question, in my view. Something can be both. Just that this art wasn’t.
As an object of my fan adoration. Ah, the entertainment. You have to love Suits, the TV series, and the parallel universe it creates. Someone on the internet called it shallow. Well, yeah, it isn’t Dostoyevsky, but who wants to read Russian literature all the time!?
Yes, blockchain technology can do things which conventional ledgers or registers cannot do. A few days ago I argued that this didn’t mean blockchain should replace traditional ways of recording legal transactions wholesale. Traditional ways of recording legal transactions embed functions which blockchains don’t embed yet. Where the law demands it or wherever else it makes sense we should think about implementing them.
Here’s in more detail what I had in mind.
After reading Caitlin Moon’s instructive blog Blockchain 101 for Lawyers I commented that we should ‘think of it as a cybernotary who can authenticate—everything’.
I’ve changed my mind.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m all for catchy analogies. They help understand much of what’s going on in cyberspace. Even better than a catchy analogy, though, is an analogy that’s catchy and apt.
This really very long and quasi-academic post is based on a speech I gave to MBA students of the Management Development Institute of Singapore sometime in 2016. Subject: how do we resolve disputes and what borders, geographical or otherwise, do we cross in doing so? Borders and otherwise, geddit, I was talking about dispute resolution in cyberspace and algorithms.
Here’s my piece on Singapore’s ratification of this Convention on Peter Bert’s dispute resolution blog.
The space where all data exchange and communication of the Internet happens, cyberspace, is neutral. Nothing insecure adheres to it in and of itself. Insecurity is brought in by man who populates cyberspace, and by the tools that he has brought along. So how to regain security in this space – cybersecurity?
Anfang 2015 wurde der Singapurische Internationale Handelsgerichtshof (Singapore International Commercial Court oder SICC) eröffnet. Das Gericht ist als Teil des singapurischen Supreme Court für internationale Handelssachen zuständig und vereint schiedsgerichtliche und gerichtliche Elemente. Singapur will damit seine Position als internationales Streitschlichtungszentrum ausbauen.
Parties to a legal dispute may believe they understand each other’s legalese or the legal ‘etiquette’ applicable. When really they don’t. This may happen when a party from a civil law jurisdiction sets foot in a common law environment, or vice versa. In international arbitration proceedings, for example.
Apparently the High Court of Singapore had to decide a case just like this.
International arbitration has a problem: proceedings that take too long and are too expensive. To help solve this we should combine the best aspects of civil law and common law procedure better.
This is my speech at the In-house Congress in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 23 April 2014. It was on why it’s important your commercial contracts contain an arbitration clause that works well.
© 2014–2026 Patrick Dahm · Personal views, not legal advice · Privacy Policy