Unless you have been living under a rock for the last three years, you will have heard something about the corruption case in Brazil that has led to the impeachment of the last president, the conviction of the one before and an investigation of the current one. Continue reading
The High Court has dismissed yet another challenge to an arbitration award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act (AA 1996) brought on the ground of serious irregularity. In this instance, a decision by a tribunal not to defer its award until further evidence was available did not amount to a breach of its general duty under section 33 of the AA 1996, because deferral may have resulted in delay over an indeterminate but potentially lengthy period. As the AA 1996 charges arbitrators with avoiding unnecessary delay in accordance with the object of arbitration (section 1), on balance, no irregularity within the meaning of section 68 was found. Continue reading
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) Federal Arbitration Law (see Law No. 6 of 2018 Concerning Arbitration) was finally adopted on 3 May 2018. I anticipated the adoption of the new law in a trilogy of blogs published in the summer of 2017 (see Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3). The draft law that I commented on then was the official draft bill that was fed into the UAE legislative process in May last year and that has now been adopted in slightly amended form. The comments I made previously on the continuing similarities between the new law and the UAE Arbitration Chapter, which the new law is to replace, remain true; I will, therefore, not repeat them here. However, a number of modifications that may raise eyebrows deserve further scrutiny. These will be discussed in some detail in a series of two consecutive blogs. Continue reading
Recently, the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs published a new draft model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) text for public consultation. The aim of this draft text is to replace the 2004 model BIT text and align it with the EU’s model treaty text, as exemplified by the Canada-EU FTA (CETA). The draft text is also an attempt to address the perceived shortcomings of existing investment treaties and the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system. Continue reading
In the recent case of Orascom TMT Investments SARL v VEON Ltd, Mr Justice Andrew Baker provides guidance in relation to the content of an arbitration claim form and witness statements made in support of section 67 and 68 challenges under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Continue reading
You’ve arbitrated the dispute. At long last, you present the successful award to your client. Immediately they ask: “What Next?” “How do we get the money?” “When will we get paid?” Continue reading
There has been vociferous public debate around the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in international investment treaties over the past few years. The increasing level of public awareness of, and opposition to ISDS provisions, has been reflected in the rising number of “anti-ISDS” groups and governmental policies around the world. Continue reading
Introduction
Last week’s English Commercial Court decision in Goodwood Investments Holdings Inc v Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG (M/Y “Palladium”) was a rare sighting of an application under section 45 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Section 45 provides a route whereby the court may determine any question of law arising in the course of arbitration proceedings, provided certain requirements are met. Continue reading
Swithin J. Munyantwali, Counsel at Appleton Luff continues our series, Arbitration in Africa.
In Part 1, Mr Munyantwali discussed his personal and professional background, including his current role. He also considered arbitral institutions and centres in Uganda. In Part 2, he examines arbitral procedure, court support for arbitration, and recognition and enforcement of awards in Uganda. He also examines investment treaty arbitration and challenges to arbitrators. Finally, he offers advice for those who wish to start a career in arbitration in Uganda/Africa and discusses the difficulties for new arbitration practitioners or arbitrators. Continue reading
Reliance Industries Ltd v Union of India concerned nine challenges brought under the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) to an arbitral award, issued by a London seated UNCITRAL panel, in a dispute between two energy companies and the government of India over contracts for the exploitation of oil and gas. The claimants, who had roundly lost in the arbitration, relied on sections 67, 68 and 69 of the AA 1996, alleging variously that the tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction, failed to address all issues and erred in law with regard to its approach to estoppel. Continue reading