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”.
A range of cases from Hong Kong, England, Malaysia and Singapore including an update on the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Measures between Hong Kong and the Mainland, an Arbitrator’s duty of impartiality and independence, and a host of enforcement-related cases.Continue Reading
The HK Court confirms an earlier decision holding that there is no provision in the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards that the limitation period should not run while a successful party seeks to enforce an award in China.
The requirement for arbitrators to act “impartially” is enshrined in the English Arbitration Act (and together with “independence”, in the Model Law and many institutional rules). This note reviews these concepts in light of the judgments in Almazeedi and Halliburton.
The English High Court considers an argument that the tribunal breached its duty of fairness, rejects the challenge under s.68 of the Arbitration Act, and sets out some guiding principles.
The Singapore Court of Appeal confirms the decision of first instance court to lift a stay on proceedings but on different grounds.
In the context of a pending set aside hearing, the Court considers and rejects an application for security costs, applying the tests in Soleh Boneh International Ltd.
In a serious and unusual case, the English High Court refuses to enforce an unchallenged arbitral on the basis that to do so would not be in the interests of justice, demonstrating that s.66 is not a simple rubber-stamping exercise.
The High Court deals with an argument that a partial award constitutes a negative jurisdiction decision and various arguments that the award should be set aside under Article 34(2) of the Model Law.
The English High Court deals with various interlocutory applications in a forthcoming challenge to an arbitration award, including payment of security and a stay of enforcement.
The Court refuses to set aside or remit an arbitration award arising out of a project in Macau, rejecting arguments that the employer was unable to present its case or that the tribunal failed to deal with all the issues.
The Arrangement concerning Mutual Assistance for interim measures, empowering Chinese courts to order interim measures in support of HK-seated arbitrations came into effect on 1 October and has already been used.
The Malaysian High Court considers whether an inquiry of damages arising out of an undertaking by an applicant to pay damages for an injunction wrongly granted by a court in support of arbitration proceedings should await the outcome of a pending arbitration between the parties.
The English Court finds that an arbitrator cannot consider WP communications when deciding costs issues but could take into account “impliedly without prejudice” communications created as part of an attempt at compromise.
The English Court refuses to set aside and remit an award stating that s.68 is concerned solely with due process and represents an exhaustive list of what constitutes “serious irregularity” under the Act.
This month, in addition to the usual International Arbitration updates from around the globe, we highlight an issue which arises regularly and continues to vex courts around the world – the extent to which third parties/non-signatories may rely on or be bound by an arbitration agreement.
The court in BXS held that the time for making an application to set aside under Article 34(3) could not be extended. One month later, in BXY, the SICC reaches the same conclusion in respect of Article 16(3) of the Model Law.
A cross-border update of judgments dealing with challenges to arbitration awards, dealing with decisions from the courts of Hong Kong, Singapore and England.
Enforcement of SIAC awards challenged on a number of grounds, including jurisdiction and breach of natural justice, rejected by the Delhi High Court who orders the judgment debtor to deposit the underlying sum.
A practical overview of third party funding in belt and road disputes in the main arbitral seats together with practical takeaways on what a party should consider when considering third party funding and tips to ensure its use is successful.
Golden Oasis is the latest in a series of cases (Lasmos, But Ka Chon) dealing with the interplay between insolvency proceedings and arbitration. While the Court agreed with parts of Lasmos, it dismissed the stay to arbitration application as no relevant arbitration clause existed.
A US court finds that a final judgment setting aside an award at the seat is generally conclusive, that the public policy exception is narrow and infrequently met, thereby refusing to enforce an award set aside in Nigeria.
The Singapore High Court dismisses an application to set aside an arbitration award under A.34 of the Model Law, finding that the tribunal had jurisdiction and that its composition was in accordance with the parties’ agreement.
A number of recent decisions from the courts in the Cayman Islands affirm the judiciary’s experience in dealing with arbitration-related disputes.