Asia: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Hotel and security company not liable for patron’s injury during altercation due to poor pleading undermining the case.

Enduring attorneys hold significant power over the financial and personal affairs of those who have lost capacity, yet many make critical mistakes that can lead to disputes, financial loss, and legal consequences.

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the threshold for establishing nuisance remains high, and that factual causation will be difficult to establish when there are multiple factors contributing to an incident.

When serious allegations are published – intentionally, publicly and to a mass audience – the legal question is immediate and unforgiving: who must justify them? Under Australian defamation law, the answer is not the person defamed. It is the person who chose to publish.

The proliferation of online content platforms has generated persistent tension between the rights of individuals to seek redress for reputational harm and the statutory protections afforded to digital intermediaries...

This decision is a reminder of the steps which need to be taken and criteria to be satisfied in order to successfully rely on the defences of honest opinion, statutory qualified privilege and justification under the Defamation Act 2005.

Singapore’s reputation as a dispute resolution hub has long been associated with arbitration. But as discussed during WLG’s recent Dispute Resolution Group meeting, the jurisdiction now offers a broader range of options for international parties considering where and how to resolve cross-border disputes.

On 22 May 2026, the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Department of Sports (MoYAS), notified two sets of rules under the National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (NSG Act): (i) the National Sports Governance (National Sports Board) Rules, 2026 (NSB Rules) vide G.S.R. 404(E); and (ii) the National Sports Governance (National Sports Tribunal) Rules, 2026 (NST Rules) vide G.S.R. 405(E) (collectively, “Rules”). Both were published in the Official Gazette on 25 May 2026 and came into force on the date of publication.

The validity of an arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) ultimately boils down to consent. At its core, an arbitration clause is nothing more than a contractual promise by the parties to resolve their disputes outside the regular court system. But consent isn’t always straightforward.

In a sweeping 250-page judgment pronounced on May 08, 2026, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the validity of Indian Patent No. 240893, owned by Canadian company Communication Components Antenna Inc. (Plaintiff), for split-sector antenna technology that uses asymmetrical beams to increase subscriber capacity in cellular networks.

This article examines when a supplementary chargesheet or further report or subsequent complaint is a legitimate continuation of the investigation, and when it becomes a second attempt to improve the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court of India, by its judgment dated 27 May 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Amazon.com NV Investment Holdings LLC (Amazon) and set aside the orders of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) dated 13 June 2022 and the order of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dated 17 December 2021.