Significant Matters

• Representing an Asian State-owned entity against another Asian State-owned entity in an ICC arbitration seated in Hong Kong. The dispute arose out of an agreement for the transportation of gas and is governed by the national law of one of the parties. Over US$450 million is at stake;
• Representing a French-German consortium against a Finnish utility company in an ICC arbitration seated in Stockholm. The dispute arose from an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant in Finland and was governed by Finnish law. Over EUR 6.1 billion was at stake;
• Representing Garanti Koza against Turkmenistan in an ICSID investment arbitration. The dispute arose out of the construction of a highway in Turkmenistan. The UK-Turkmenistan BIT applied;
• Representing the subsidiary of an Asian State-owned company in the energy sector as Respondent against its Asian joint venture partners in two parallel ICC arbitrations seated in Singapore. The dispute arose from a joint venture agreement for the development of an oil storage facility and related port facilities in Asia. English law and the law of the Claimants' State applied;
• Representing a Southeast Asian listed company as Claimant in an SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore. The dispute arose in connection with a shipbuilding contract. Singapore law applied;
• Representing an Indian respondent against a Malaysian claimant in a telecoms related SIAC arbitration. The seat of the arbitration was Singapore and over US$800 million was at stake;
• Representing a Singapore company in an ICC arbitration arising out of a Supply Contract for the supply of military technology used in the Middle East;
• Representing Singaporean shareholders against an American company in an ICC arbitration arising out of a Shareholders Agreement. The arbitration was seated in Singapore and Singapore law applied;
• Advising a major US chemical company in relation to a joint venture agreement with its Asian counterpart. The ICC arbitration was seated in Hong Kong and governed by Hong Kong law;
• Advising a Mongolian State-owned entity in complex negotiations with Rio Tinto regarding the Oyu Tolgoi mining project in Mongolia. The Oyu Tolgoi mine is estimated to account for a third of Mongolia’s GDP in 2020;
• Advising an Indian company on a dispute arising out of a Software Agreement with an Indian counterparty. The dispute was governed by Indian law and seated in Singapore;
• Acting as sole arbitrator in an ad hoc arbitration between a South Korean claimant and a Vietnamese respondent. The value in dispute was over US$100,000;
• Acting as co-mediator in a commercial mediation concerning the sale and purchase of commercial real estate in Singapore;
• Assisting an arbitrator in Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40.

Selected Publications

• Anthony Cheah Nicholls and Dimitrios Katsikis, “Enforcement in Indonesia: obtaining a Power of Attorney for registration of the award”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 37, no. 5 (2020), pp. 665-674.
• Anthony Cheah Nicholls and Chris Bloch, “ICC Hybrid Arbitrations Here to Stay: Singapore Courts’ Treatment of the ICC Rules Revisions in Articles 1(2) and 6(2)”, Journal of International Arbitration, Vol. 31, no.3 (2014), pp. 393-412.
• Anthony Cheah Nicholls, “Enforcing Mediation Agreements: Why the End is just as Important as the Beginning”, Singapore Law Gazette (May 2014).
• Anthony Cheah Nicholls, Gerald Kuppusamy and Weiyi Tan, “PT First Media TBK (formerly known as PT Broadband Multimedia TBK) v Astro Nusantara International BV and others and another appeal [2013] SGCA 57”, Mealey’s International Arbitration Report, Vol.29, #1, January 2014.
• Dr. Michael Hwang S.C.  and Anthony Cheah Nicholls, “When should Video Conferencing Evidence be allowed?”, Singapore Law Gazette (September 2012); republished by CLJ Law online under citation [2016] 1 LNS(A) xxxix.