What Clients Say About Working With Us
These accounts come from businesses and individuals who brought their disputes to Sablecroft. They reflect a range of matters — from domestic mediation to international enforcement proceedings.
Back to Home
Direct From Those We Have Worked With
"We had a significant subcontractor dispute under AIAC Rules and needed someone who genuinely understood how those proceedings work. Rajan and his team prepared materials of a standard I had not seen from smaller firms before. The award favoured our position on the core issues, and the process was managed with minimal disruption to our ongoing operations."
"We entered mediation in a fee dispute with a former client. Having Sablecroft represent us in preparation and during the session made a practical difference — particularly in how they structured our opening position. We reached a settlement that worked for both sides, which is what we had hoped for going in. I appreciated that they were honest about what was realistic from day one."
"We were trying to enforce a Singapore ICC award against a local counterparty that was contesting the application. Sablecroft handled the High Court originating summons and dealt with the setting-aside arguments thoroughly. The enforcement order was granted within the timeline they estimated. Their knowledge of the New York Convention process is something our previous counsel simply did not have."
"I had expected arbitration to be an overwhelming process. Sablecroft kept us informed throughout each stage, and their written submissions were thorough without being padded out unnecessarily. The final award resolved most of the disputed issues in our favour. What I valued most was that they gave us a realistic picture early — they never overstated what was achievable."
"We engaged Sablecroft for a court-annexed mediation involving a land dispute. They helped us draft a position statement that focused the mediator's attention on the relevant commercial issues, rather than getting lost in the legal arguments. The matter settled on the day. Given what prolonged litigation would have cost both parties, the mediation route was clearly the right one."
"We came to Sablecroft after another firm had taken us to the start of arbitration proceedings without adequate preparation. The team took over, reviewed what had been filed, and restructured the approach. They were candid about what had been done well and what needed to be rebuilt. The proceedings concluded with a partial award — not everything we sought, but a fair outcome given the circumstances."
Matters in Detail
These summaries illustrate how Sablecroft has handled specific dispute types. Identifying details have been altered to preserve confidentiality.
A Malaysian exporter was owed approximately RM 1.4 million under a goods supply agreement with a Singapore counterparty. The counterparty disputed the quality of delivered goods and raised a set-off claim, delaying resolution. The arbitration clause designated AIAC Fast Track Rules.
Sablecroft prepared a clear statement of claim with supporting delivery documentation and quality inspection records. The set-off claim was addressed with a detailed response and independent technical evidence. The matter proceeded on paper submissions and a single half-day hearing.
Award issued in the client's favour for 87% of the claimed amount. The set-off claim was dismissed in full. The award was satisfied voluntarily by the counterparty within 30 days of publication. No enforcement proceedings were necessary.
Two parties to a joint venture for a commercial property development had reached an impasse on valuation of each party's share upon exit. The underlying dispute included allegations of unequal contribution and breach of the joint venture agreement. Litigation would have frozen the asset.
Sablecroft represented the exiting party in private mediation. A detailed position statement was prepared, setting out a documented record of contributions. Three mediation sessions were held across two weeks. The focus was kept on commercial interests rather than legal positions, which both parties found more productive.
Settlement reached on day 15 of the mediation process. The client received a negotiated exit valuation representing approximately 94% of their original position. The joint venture asset was released within 45 days. Both parties maintained professional contact thereafter.
A client held an ICC arbitration award from Hong Kong against a Malaysian respondent. The respondent had not satisfied the award and their Malaysian assets were the primary enforcement route. The respondent filed a challenge in the High Court seeking to have enforcement refused on public policy grounds.
Sablecroft prepared the originating summons and supporting affidavit, including properly authenticated award documents. The public policy challenge was met with a comprehensive written response demonstrating that none of the narrow grounds for refusal applied under the Arbitration Act 2005 and New York Convention jurisprudence.
High Court granted enforcement and dismissed the setting-aside application. The enforcement order was extracted and execution steps were initiated against identified Malaysian assets. Full recovery was achieved within 60 days of the enforcement order being granted.
Speak With Our Team
If you are considering bringing a dispute to arbitration or mediation, we are available for an initial conversation to help you assess the options. No commitment is required at this stage.
Ready to Discuss Your Matter?
An initial consultation allows us to assess your dispute, clarify your options, and advise on the most appropriate pathway — before you commit to any course of action.
Get in Touch