NEWSLETTER-2019-metin

371 MISCELLANEOUS request of the party against whom the relief is sought, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority proof that: • A party to the settlement agreement was under some incapa- city; • The settlement agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed; • The settlement agreement is not binding, or is not final; • The settlement agreement has been subsequently modified; • The obligations in the settlement agreement have been per- formed or are not clear or comprehensible; • Granting relief would be contrary to the terms of the settle- ment agreement; • There was a serious breach by the mediator of standards app- licable to the mediator or the mediation; or • There was a failure by the mediator to disclose to the par- ties circumstances that raise justifiable doubts as to the mediator’s impartiality or independence and such failure to disclose had a material impact or undue influence on a party without which failure that party would not have entered into the settlement agreement. This Article provides for two additional grounds that the relevant authority may invoke on its own initiative: a) Granting relief would be contrary to the public policy of that party; or b) The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of sett- lement by mediation under the laws of that party. Conclusion Prior to this work, there was no legal framework that dealt with the enforcement of settlement agreements and, thus, the Singapore Convention will fill a gap in this regard. Additionally, in 2018 the UN-