Sea Master v Arab Bank: when “challenging yourself” goes too far
Not every case begins with the declaration that “this is an odd case”. An application under section 67 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 to contest the jurisdiction of the tribunal is normally brought against claims by one’s opponents. However, Sea Master v Arab Bank concerned a section 67 application by the claimants (together “Sea Master”) … Continue reading Sea Master v Arab Bank: when “challenging yourself” goes too far
National Investment Bank v Eland: a cautionary tale
The recent case of National Investment Bank Ltd v Eland International (Thailand) Co Ltd and another addresses a wide range of matters related to arbitration in a relatively brief judgment. Foxton J considered, among other things, the relationship between sections 18 and 72 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), waiver, section 14 of the … Continue reading National Investment Bank v Eland: a cautionary tale
Applying Gleeson: how and when will an arbitration decision bind non-parties?
A topical and interesting decision from the Commercial Court last month, PJSC National Bank Trust v Boris Mints, looks at the circumstances in which an arbitration decision can bind non-parties. Topical, for me at least, not just because it was yet another case where Russian litigants were using English courts to resolve their disputes, but … Continue reading Applying Gleeson: how and when will an arbitration decision bind non-parties?
International Commercial Arbitration: The Applicable Laws Theorem
One of the most interesting aspects of international arbitration are the applicable laws. For me, what makes international arbitration stand out as its own system of law, much like the law of contract, torts or criminal law, is the method employed to determine which laws apply and how they operate together in harmony, or at … Continue reading International Commercial Arbitration: The Applicable Laws Theorem
