REUTERS | Danish Siddiqui
October 17, 2019

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2019: improving institutional arbitration in India

REUTERS | Danish Siddiqui
October 17, 2019

The Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2019: improving institutional arbitration in India

With thanks to Varnika Chawla, trainee solicitor (India Qualified) in the International Arbitration and Construction Disputes Group at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP for co-authoring this blog.

On 9 August 2019, the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act 2019 was published. This will come into force as and when the central government notifies by way of Official Gazette. The Act amends the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and is the latest in a series of steps designed to make India a more arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Joshua Roberts
October 10, 2019

ICSID publishes new working paper and aims to finalise rule amendments

On 16 August 2019, the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) published its third working paper on its proposed amendments to the ICSID Arbitration Rules. ICSID intends to submit the revised rules to member states for consultation in November 2019 and to approve the final text of the rules next year. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Ints Kalnins
October 4, 2019

Disclosure of third party interests: the SCC and beyond

On 11 September 2019, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) adopted a policy encouraging the disclosure of the identity of “any third party with a significant interest in the outcome” of an SCC arbitration. This new policy is effective. Such disclosure will likely initially be contained within the parties’ first written submissions, although parties are also encouraged to disclose where any third party acquires a significant interest in the outcome of the dispute during the course of the arbitration. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Juan Carlos Ulate
October 3, 2019

ADGM and EMAC on course for co-operation

Earlier last month, the ADGM Arbitration Centre (ADGMAC) and the Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre (EMAC) signed a co-operation agreement (see Cooperation Agreement between the Abu Dhabi Global Market Arbitration Centre and Emirates Maritime Arbitration Centre, dated 8 September 2019) in an ambitious move to unite forces in the development and promotion of international commercial and maritime arbitration and mediation across the Middle East. Behind this ambition lies the idea that the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) and the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), the home jurisdiction of the EMAC, serve both as attractive free zone seats and venues in their own right. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Faisal Mahmood
September 26, 2019

Arbitral awards: is the reasoning good enough?

Judgment was recently handed down in Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another v Broadsheet LLC. In this case, Moulder J considered two competing and irreconcilable lines of authority in respect of whether failure of reasoning can ground a challenge against an arbitral award pursuant to section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The decision both confirms that there is no scope for a section 68 challenge based on inadequate reasoning and cautions against conflating the concepts of “substantive injustice” based on “failure of reasoning” as between court proceedings and arbitral proceedings. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Leonhard Foeger
September 23, 2019

Exemplary damage limitation? Award for potentially punitive damages upheld despite public policy concerns

Under English law, it has long been held that “exemplary damages ought not to be, and are not according to any true principle of law, recoverable” for claims in breach of contract. The injured party in a contractual claim is entitled to “adequate compensation in money for the loss of that which he would have received had his contract been kept, and no more” (Addis v Gramophone Company Ltd). Continue reading →

REUTERS | Hannah McKay
September 20, 2019

P v D and the dangers of failing to cross-examine witnesses

The judgment of Sir Michael Burton in P v D provides a salutary warning to those appearing as advocates in London seated arbitrations of the dangers of failing to cross-examine key witnesses on essential issues. In addition, it provides a salutary warning to arbitrators of the dangers of failing to ensure that “proper” cross-examination is conducted or of rejecting evidence on essential issues which has not been the subject of “proper” cross-examination. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Aly Song
September 17, 2019

Adjourning the enforcement of an arbitration award: AIC Ltd v The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria and adjourning decisions on New York Convention awards

The Technology and Construction Court (TCC) recently considered the question on whether it could and, properly, should adjourn its decision on the recognition or enforcement of a New York Convention award, in the case of AIC Limited v The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria. Continue reading →