For decades, various arguments have been made for an increased uptake in international arbitration as an alternative mechanism for resolving disputes in the English-speaking Caribbean.
Arbitration in the Caribbean: clearing for take off
The 2022 DIAC Rules: Out at Last! (Part 2)
As reported in the first part of this blog, the new Rules of Arbitration of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre 2022 (DIAC Rules 2022) have entered into force with effect from 21 March 2022. Part 1 discussed in some detail the virtual conduct, the revision of time-limits and the introduction of expedited proceedings, as well as party representation under the DIAC Rules 2022. This part continues the discussion, focusing on the balance of procedural novelties introduced by the new Rules.
On 21 March 2022, member states of the ICSID Convention approved amendments to the ICSID Regulations and Rules, which will enter into force on 1 July 2022.
The approval of the revised rules follows an extensive process spanning over five years, involving public consultations, meetings with state experts, and the publication of six working papers. The new modernised rules include valuable provisions directed at reducing time and costs, including new mandatory timeframes for rendering orders and awards and new “opt-in” expedited arbitration rules. The new rules also embrace the use of technology and, for the first time, address the disclosure of third-party funding.
We are delighted to welcome Meg Kinnear, Secretary-General of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank Group since 2009. Meg is in her third term as ICSID Secretary-General, prior to which she served as Director General of the Trade Law Bureau of Canada, where she was responsible for the conduct of international investment and trade litigation involving Canada. Meg has therefore seen investment disputes from different perspectives, and we are delighted that she has agreed to answer some of our questions about the new ICSID arbitration rules.
2022 DIAC Rules: Out at Last! (Part 1)
Following a gestation period of well over five years (predecessors of the 2022 version of the Rules having surfaced for the first time in 2017, reported in Part 1 and Part 2 of a previous blog), the new Rules of Arbitration of the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) have, at long last, been published in their 2022 version. This, no doubt, has been facilitated by the reinvention of the DIAC following the adoption of Dubai Government Decree No. 34 of 2021 concerning the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (Decree No. 34/2021).
Pre-conditions to arbitration: admissibility v jurisdiction approaches from England and Hong Kong
It is common for commercial contracts to contain a dispute resolution clause specifying pre-conditions or escalation mechanisms that parties must comply with before being able to refer a dispute to arbitration. From this arises an often-debated question of whether failure to comply with enforceable pre-conditions affects the jurisdiction of the relevant tribunal to hear a claim arising out of the arbitration agreement, or it is simply a matter of the admissibility of the claims.
2022: time for change!
The Law Commission is proceeding with its review of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The project is now in the pre-consultation stage and, following submissions received as part of its wider consultation on the 14th programme of reform, the Law Commission has published a (non-exhaustive) list of areas that might merit further consideration and improvement.
The new Micula judgment and the overreach of the ECJ
On 25 January 2022 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) handed down its judgment in the appeal procedure in the well known Micula case.
As the readers of this blog will be aware, since the CJEU’s decision in Achmea, there has been much discussion as to whether the principle against intra-EU arbitrations also applies to a multilateral investment treaty context, such as the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).
Can an arbitral award be challenged on the grounds of a third-party litigation funding costs award?
The recent English High Court decision in Tenke Fungurume Mining S.A. v Katanga Contracting Services SAS considered whether an arbitral award that awarded costs for obtaining litigation funding could be challenged on the grounds of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).
Privacy and confidentiality of arbitration-related court proceedings: a culture clash
It is a long established principle of English common law that arbitrations are private and confidential. This means that arbitration hearings are not open to third parties, and both the parties and the tribunal have an implied duty to maintain the confidentiality of the hearing and documents generated in the arbitration, including the award. Many institutional rules also expressly provide for confidentiality (such as article 30 of the LCIA rules) and parties that agree to adopt those rules will incorporate those confidentiality provisions into their arbitration agreement.