Frederico Singarajah

Frederico Singarajah

Frederico Singarajah is a specialist in international trade and investment disputes.  He practiced law as a solicitor and in-house lawyer before being called to the bar.  As a native Brazilian he speaks Portuguese (and Spanish), is often involved in Latin American, Iberian and Lusophone disputes and is able to provide quick advice without the need for translations or interpreters.  He is specifically sought out for his unique expertise by English, International and foreign firms as well as third-party funders and government.




Contact Frederico Singarajah

Website: hardwicke.co.uk

Articles and Video:

A Firmer View on Conflicts of Interest (Part 2) (01/05/21)
This article discusses the differences between the Brazilian and English disclosure regimes, such as there is no codified duty to disclose in England and secondly, the exclusion of the word 'independence' from the English Arbitration Act, 1996 which appears in Article 14(1) of the Brazilian Arbitration Act 1996.

A Firmer View on Conflicts of Interest (Part 1) (12/10/20)
The issue of conflicts of interest as well as an arbitrator’s duty to disclose have been hot topics in England because of the 'Halliburton' decision of the Supreme Court, and in Brazil because of the 'Fazon' case, both of which are similar in the issues before the respective courts.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Virtual Hearings (Part 1) (07/08/20)
This article provides guidance for virtually conducting oral hearings for arbitration processes with the COVID-19 crisis having diminished face-to-face meetings and having forced the legal profession to adapt. Five concerns are identified 1) Hearing platform, 2) Document presentation, 3) Confidentiality and security, 4) Witness examination, and 5) Advocacy.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Virtual Hearings (Part 2) (07/08/20)
This two part article provides guidance for virtually conducting oral hearings for arbitration processes, focusing on five considerations: 1) Hearing platform, 2) Document presentation, 3) Confidentiality and security, 4) Witness examination, 5) Advocacy. Part 1 provided an analysis of the first two, and this article (Part 2) analyzes the final three.