Like last month, the aim of this post is to bring together a number of recent articles published by law firms at the forefront of advising commercial parties in dealing with the pandemic. It is my hope that an update next month will not be necessary.Continue Reading
The English CA overturns the first instance court, holding that English Courts do have jurisdiction under s.44(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 to grant orders for taking evidence from non-party witnesses in aid of foreign arbitrations.
Tanner De Witt, one of Arbitrium’s sponsors, outlines the operation of the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between the Mainland and the HKSAR.
The Singapore Court of Appeal declines to set aside an award on the grounds of breach of natural justice in proceedings arising out of the termination of a construction contract.
In the latest decision from the HK High Court to consider the interplay between arbitration and winding-up proceedings, Lavesh Kirpalani, Counsel at Prince’s Chambers, reviews the decision in Re Asia Master Logistics, where he appeared for the successful petitioner.
The SICC dismisses an application to set aside an award, finding that the tribunal was justified in granting the cumulative relief that it did, and that there was no apparent bias on the part of an arbitrator who made a belated disclosure about being engaged as co-counsel with the defendant’s legal representative.
The HK Court dismisses an application to set aside an arbitral award, rejecting claims that the agreement was a sham and that enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy. Edward Chin, Pupil Barrister, reviews the case.
The HK Court denies an application for a stay of proceedings to arbitration in a case concerning bills of lading. Nick Luxton, Counsel, appeared for the successful Plaintiff, and provides a review of the decision.
The debate concerning the extent to which international arbitration poses a threat to precedent-based legal systems continues.
This month, Arbitrium features a post published in relation to the legal impact of the coronavirus outbreak, highlighting the key issues for businesses. Further, an interesting decision from the Malaysian High Court which considered the test for an application to subpoena a witness to produce documents for the purpose of an arbitration and give evidence in arbitration proceedings and a range of case notes from England in relation to ss. 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act.Continue Reading
The English CA allows a party who did not sign an agreement to enforce the right to arbitrate on the basis that an agent had entered into the agreement on the non-signing party’s behalf.
The English High Court refuses a stay to arbitration in circumstances where an escrow agreement contains an arbitration agreement.
The English Court rules that it does not have the power to compel a witness to give evidence in a New York-seated arbitration because he was not a party to the underlying arbitral agreement.
A number of law firms have published articles dealing with the legal impacts of the coronavirus outbreak. This post brings a few of them together, highlighting the key issues for businesses.
A recent report from the UK judiciary indicates a reduction in applications brought under s.68 (challenge to award on the ground of serious procedural irregularity) and under s68 (appeals on a point of law).
The English High Court confirms the default position of requiring disclosure of a first expert’s report or draft report where a party seeks to change experts without good explanation.
The Malaysian High Court considers the test for an application to subpoena a witness to produce documents for the purpose of an arbitration and give evidence in arbitration proceedings.
The English High Court deals with an application to set aside an award under s.67 of the Act on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties.
Pinsent Masons publish their 2019 International Arbitration in Construction survey; an in-depth analysis that should assist clients and practitioners in evaluating what steps might be taken to optimise the arbitral process with a view to resolving disputes more efficiently.
This month, Arbitrium brings you a range of cases including, from Singapore, the Court of Appeal’s decision in BXS v BNY (overturning the High Court on the question of the right seat of arbitration), and a High Court decision dealing with the public policy ground of objection and time limits ; a raft of cases from England, including a CA decision concerning the governing law of an arbitration agreement and consideration of no oral modification provisions; and an interesting link to the “Disputes Clause Finder”, an online tool which provides users with tailored dispute resolution clauses.Continue Reading
The Privy Council (on appeal from Mauritius) upholds a decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius which refused to set aside an arbitral award on the basis of alleged breaches of natural justice and public policy.
The English CA considers the governing law of an arbitration agreement and whether the respondent became a party to the main agreement and/or the arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of No Oral Modification provisions in the main contract.
The English court extends time and then confirms that the LCIA Tribunal has power to correct award under Article 27.1 of the LCIA Rules.
Baker McKenzie has developed a useful tool, the “Disputes Clause Finder”, which provides users with individually tailored choice-of-court or arbitration clauses.
When appointing an arbitrator, parties rarely consider taking out a legal risk policy to cover the death, disability and disqualification of an arbitrator. In this interesting article, the author discusses the issue and the options available.
The Irish High Court provides a useful summary of the authorities dealing with a Court’s de novo review under Art.16(3) of the Model Law following a decision on jurisdiction by a tribunal.
The Singapore High Court rejects an argument that enforcement of a partial award could be resisted on the public policy ground, and also deals with time extension applications for setting aside and resisting enforcement of awards.
The Singapore Court of Appeal overturns the High Court, finding that the phrase “arbitration in Shanghai” means that Shanghai was clearly intended as the seat of arbitration.
Arbitrium wishes all our readers, subscribers and sponsors the very best for 2020. This month, we welcome two additional sponsors, Hong Kong law firms GPS McQuhae LLP and Yang Chau Law Office and report on several cases dealing with anti-suit injunction applications.Continue Reading
The English Court considers an application for the continuance of an anti-suit injunction against a non-party to an arbitration agreement, based on the non-party pursuing proceedings in Russia which raised overlapping issues to those which were the subject of the arbitration.
IA practitioners know the importance of the seat of arbitration, and its impact on the conduct of arbitration proceedings and any subsequent court applications to set aside and enforce. A brief recap.
The Hong Kong Court refuses to grant an indemnity costs order following an anti-suit injunction, rejecting an argument that the general approach in arbitration cases to award indemnity costs should be extended against a person who was not a party to the arbitration agreement.
The Hong Kong High Court grants a permanent anti-suit injunction to stop court proceedings continuing on the Mainland on the basis that they were oppressive, vexatious and brought for the purpose of frustrating the arbitration.
The UAE Federal Arbitration Law (No.6 of 2018) came into force on 15 June 2018, and introduced a number of procedural developments relating to the conduct of arbitration proceedings and the enforcement of domestic and international awards before the local UAE courts.
In an important decision, the English Court of Appeal grants an anti-arbitration injunction, saying it will do so only in “exceptional circumstances” and that parties cannot contract out of ss.67 & 68 of the English Act.
In an unusual case, a party filed evidence and sought to resist enforcement of an award but at the hearing advised that it would not advance any arguments to oppose the application to set aside the order granting leave to enforce, thereby leaving the party seeking enforcement to satisfy the court that order ought to be set aside.
The English Court dismisses an appeal under s.69 of the Act, highlighting the limited circumstances in which parties will be allowed to appeal arbitration awards on a point of law.
We are delighted to report that in the space of only a few months, Arbitrium now boasts a subscriber list of nearly 1,800 specialist international arbitration practitioners from around the globe. Many of these subscribers have also joined the Arbitrium group on LinkedIn. Thank you to all our readers, our contributors and our sponsors for their support.Continue Reading
The English High Court considers an insurance policy containing “service of suit” provisions and continues an anti-suit injunction against the defendant on the basis that it was satisfied that the parties had agreed to submit their dispute to London arbitration.
The Singapore court clarifies the applicable time limits under Art.34(3) Model Law and rejects a broad range of natural justice objections as disguised appeals on the merits.
The Singapore Court of Appeal emphasises the importance of the seat of arbitration and that prejudice need not be established to resist enforcement of an award arising out of a wrongly seated arbitration.
Section 68 of the English Act provides the basis for challenging an arbitration award where there has been a serious irregularity. This is a useful overview of the (only seven) successful challenges brought under the section, highlighting the difficulties in success.
The new Macau arbitration law has been gazetted and will come into force in early May 2020. A local law firm provides an overview of the new legislation.
The authors examine a number of ICC cases which consider requests for a stay of arbitration proceedings and/or requests relating to the use of evidence submitted within or resulting from criminal proceedings.
The HK High Court grants an anti-suit injunction to restrain court proceedings on the Mainland, confirming that the relief is an “interim measure” within the terms of s.35 and s.45 of the Ordinance (and Article 17 of the Model Law).
A useful overview of the substantive considerations available to a tribunal when determining whether grant security for costs.
The Court of Appeal dismisses an appeal against a bankruptcy order finding that the debt was not covered by an arbitration clause. The Court also considered recent authorities arising out of the Lasmos case.
The Mainland Court has recognised the principle of severability of arbitration agreement and held that although the underlying contracts had not been formally signed, the parties had reached valid arbitration agreements.
The English Court finds that a successful enforcement action did not entitle the Claimant to an award of costs as it failed to satisfy the requirements of full and frank disclosure.
The HK High Court refuses leave to appeal an award under the Schedule to the Ordinance, finding that the Arbitrator was “not obviously wrong”.