In the first week of April, the UNCITRAL Working Group III (Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform) will continue its work replacing the currently existing investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) with a multilateral investment court (MIC) in New York. Continue reading
It was widely predicted that the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Halliburton v Chubb last year would act as a spur to, rather than a break on, challenges to arbitrators on grounds of impartiality. The recent decision of the Commercial Court in Soletanche Bachy France S.A.S. v Aqaba Container Terminal (PVT) Co provides a number of insights into how the English courts will approach such applications, both in arbitrations generally and in ICC arbitrations in particular. Continue reading
South Africa’s recent adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law for the purposes of international arbitration has been widely celebrated. In a jurisdiction where the statutory framework for the conduct of, and approach to, arbitration had all but stagnated, this move heralds a welcome alignment with global best practice and positions South Africa to become a preferred seat for the resolution of disputes across Africa. Continue reading
Part 1 of this blog provided a brief introduction to the existing landscape of investment legislation in the Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) countries, highlighting that Bahrain is presently the only country that remains without a precise investment regime. This Part 2 aims to provide an overview of the main provisions of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Federal Decree Law No. 19/2018 on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI Law), which entered into force on 1 October 2018, including its dispute resolution provisions. The FDI Law is dedicated to the promotion of inflows of foreign direct investment into the UAE. As such, the FDI law aims for both industrial and service-sector diversification in anticipation of steadily diminishing oil resources. It does not apply to the free zones, whether financial (such as the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM)) or non-financial (such as the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre (DMCC)). Article 2(3) of the FDI Law allows the acquisition of 100% foreign ownership in digression from the general rule under the UAE Commercial Companies Code that restricts foreign onshore ownership to 49% and requires a majority local partner. Continue reading
It’s fair to say that the “rational businessman”, as described by Lord Hoffmann in the Fiona Trust case, has been pretty busy over the last few years. Continue reading
On 12 February 2019, Quadrant Chambers hosted an evening where the international arbitration community could gather and ventilate their experiences, concerns, and hopes as the United Kingdom moves closer towards exiting the European Union. Continue reading
The right to fair and equitable treatment (FET) by a host state is one of the most widely invoked standards of investment protection. The principle derives from customary international law and is a common feature of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), found at Article 2(2) of the UK’s Model BIT. Although the standard remains general, tribunals have recognised that the standard applies in certain factual situations in the context of BITs and investment treaty arbitration. Of these, this blog will consider whether the UK could be said to be in breach of the FET standard by failing to protect investors’ legitimate expectations and failing to provide a stable and predictable framework for investments.
In its recently published decision, numbered 2016/2 E and 2018/4 K and dated 13 April 2018, the General Assembly of Civil Chambers in Turkey decided that an arbitration agreement had a procedural nature. As a result, arbitration awards stemming from arbitration agreements signed before 1 October 2011, the date the new Civil Procedural Code (new CPC), numbered 6,100, came into force, are subject to the new CPC and subject to setting aside rather than an appeal. Continue reading
Introductory remarks
Anti-suit injunctions may take different forms: for example, a party may seek an injunction from an arbitral tribunal to prevent or restrain another party from commencing or continuing competing proceedings in national courts in breach of an arbitration agreement; a party may also seek an injunction from a court at the seat of the arbitration to prevent or restrain another party from commencing court proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement; or, finally, a party may seek an injunction from a court to prevent or restrain a party from commencing or continuing arbitration proceedings (the so-called “anti-arbitration” injunction).
This first of two blogs on the topic of anti-suit injunctions will discuss the first of the three scenarios contemplated above. Continue reading
Enforcing an international arbitration award is a matter of utilising the New York Convention in the domestic courts. Discontinuing arbitration claims, however, is getting complicated. Continue reading