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 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 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.
The HK High Court sets aside an award remitted to the tribunal following an initial challenge, stating that the defects resulting in the remission had not been cured by the route taken by the Arbitrator.Continue Reading
Khaitan & Co review the Indian High Court’s decision in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co …Continue Reading
Baker McKenzie review the decision of the Southern District of New York in Smarter Tools …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the English High Court’s decision in K v P  EWHC …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills reviews the decision from the English High Court in Fleetwood Wanderers Ltd …Continue Reading
Herbert Smith Freehills review the decision in P v M  HKCFI 2280, where the …Continue Reading
Phillip Rompotis reviews the Hong Kong High Court’s decision in A v B  HKCFI …Continue Reading