In Riverrock Securities Ltd v International Bank of St Petersburg, the English Commercial Court granted an interim anti-suit injunction (ASI) restraining proceedings brought in Russia by the liquidator of an insolvent company in breach of an arbitration agreement. The judgment addresses interesting issues regarding the arbitrability under English law of claims brought by liquidators pursuant to … Continue reading The arbitrability of avoidance claims: English Commercial Court continues pro-arbitration trend
In the recent decision of MVV Environment Devonport Ltd v NTO Shipping GmbH & Co KG and others, the English High Court set aside an arbitral award issued by the London Maritime Arbitrators Association under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) on the basis that the arbitral tribunal lacked substantive jurisdiction over … Continue reading Silence is not assent: English High Court sets aside arbitral award for lack of substantive jurisdiction
Almost a decade after the first directly opposing decisions in the case of Dallah, the French and English courts have, once again, rendered contrary decisions in the case of Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group.
In the recent decision of Enka v Chubb, the English Court of Appeal affirmed the English courts’ jurisdiction to determine anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitrations seated in London, even when the courts would need to apply foreign law to decide the issue. The Court of Appeal also clarified that absent an explicit choice of … Continue reading Enka v Chubb: English Court of Appeal reinforces London’s position as arbitration venue of choice
On 6 May 2020, the European Commission announced that a majority of EU member states had signed the Agreement for the Termination of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) between the Member States of the EU. The agreement will have a significant impact on the protective measures bestowed upon EU investors who have businesses in other EU … Continue reading Agreement for the termination of intra-EU BITs signed: the bell tolls?
The worry currently at the forefront of everyone’s mind is understandably the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. On 12 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially declared the outbreak a pandemic, meaning drastic measures have been taken across the globe to prevent its further spread. At the time of publication, there have been … Continue reading How COVID-19 might affect international arbitration
The Micula v Romania world tour continues. In a judgment handed down by the UK Supreme Court on 19 February 2020, the court held that the Miculas were entitled to enforce their ICSID award of approximately US $331 million against Romania, despite the fact that the award remains subject to an ongoing state aid investigation … Continue reading Micula v Romania: rematch clause activated?
In the recent decision of Kabab-Ji v Kout Food Group, the English Court of Appeal addressed the question of what law governs an arbitration agreement in the absence of an express provision. It went on to refuse the enforcement of an arbitral award on the basis that the party against whom the award was to … Continue reading Nom nom nom: recent Court of Appeal decision gives food for thought on no oral modification (NOM) clause in arbitration dispute
In November this year, the UK Supreme Court heard the appeal in the Halliburton v Chubb, which has been the subject of much scrutiny by the arbitration community recently.
Quantum of suffering The English High Court recently provided the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) some respite in its ongoing dispute with the British Virgin Islands company, Process & Industrial Developments Ltd (P&ID) by granting FGN leave to appeal and a stay on enforcement of the arbitral award made against it in January 2017. Having … Continue reading Federal Government of Nigeria granted stay of enforcement and leave to appeal in key arbitration case
In the latest round of the long-running Micula saga, the US District Court for the District of Columbia has confirmed an ICSID award against Romania, entering judgment for approximately US $331 million in an action to enforce the award.