Welcome to the 13th issue of ReSolution® in which we draw on the experience and knowledge of leading experts in the field to bring you commentary, articles and reviews on topical matters relating to domestic and international dispute resolution. In this issue we feature arbitration with articles on the finality of awards, amendments to the Arbitration Act, the role of arbitral secretaries, enforcement of international arbitration awards, security for costs, and the nightmare that can be the reality of multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses. We also look at therapeutic jurisprudence and how it might impact law reform, revisit neutral evaluation, and more. In Case in Brief, Jeremy Upson discusses the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in BPE Solicitors v Hughes Holland in which the court held BPE had no legal responsibility for Hughes-Holland’s losses sustained after a property development failed as the loss suffered was not within the scope of BPE’s duty, and I discuss the recent decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal in the Wilson Taylor v Duna-Jet case in which the court upheld the validity of a unilateral or ‘asymmetrical’ arbitration agreement which made arbitration of a future dispute entirely optional at the election of the respondent. I wish to take this opportunity to thank all our contributors. We are most grateful for the support we receive from dispute resolution professionals, law firms, and publishers, locally and overseas, that allows us to share with you papers and articles of a world-class standard, and to bring you a broad perspective on the law and evolving trends in the delivery and practice of domestic and international dispute resolution. Contributions of articles, papers and commentary for future issues of ReSolution® are always welcome. I do hope you find this issue interesting and useful. Please feel free to distribute ReSolution® to your friends and colleagues – they are most welcome to contact us if they wish to receive our publications directly.