REUTERS | Yuri Gripas
April 25, 2018

Increased transparency in arbitrator appointment procedures in commercial arbitrations

In April 2018, the Arbitration Committee of the New York City Bar Association released a report that describes the arbitrator appointment procedures of various arbitral institutions in commercial arbitrations. The report provides guidance on arbitrator appointment options that may not be readily apparent from the institutions’ arbitration rules and websites in an effort to increase transparency and access to this information. The report is the result of extensive research based on publicly available data, user experience, and interviews with representatives of the institutions. It is designed to be user-friendly to corporate in-house counsel and outside litigation counsel who may not regularly handle commercial arbitrations. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Jason Reed
April 23, 2018

Reflections on the International Council for Commercial Arbitration’s 24th Congress, Sydney, 15-18 April 2018

The International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA) held its 24th biannual congress against the spectacular backdrop of Sydney in the autumn between 15 and 18 April 2018. The theme of this Congress was Evolution and Adaptation: The Future of International Arbitration. I had planned my trip to Sydney more than a year in advance and was very much looking forward to my first ICCA Congress. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Denis Balibouse
April 13, 2018

The CJEU decision in Slovak Republic v Achmea: what opportunities for Switzerland?

On 6 March 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its much-awaited decision in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV, in which it held that the arbitration clause contained in Article 8 of the Netherlands-Slovakia bilateral investment treaty (BIT), and those contained in other intra-EU BITs in general, was incompatible with EU law because it would threaten the “full effectiveness of EU law.” Continue reading →

REUTERS | Amir Cohen
April 5, 2018

The DIFC as a conduit: resurrected from the dead?

A recent order of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance (see Isai v Isabelle) gives hope that the DIFC Courts’ status as a conduit jurisdiction has been resurrected from the dead and been granted a new lease of life. Readers of this blog will recall previous reporting to the effect that the Dubai-DIFC Joint Judicial Tribunal (the JT) (see Cassation No. 1/2017 – Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC v Jinhai Heavy Industry Co Ltd; and Cassation No. 3/2017 – Ramadan Mousa Mishmish v Sweet Homes Real Estate) and the Dubai Court of First Instance (see Commercial Case No. 1619/2016, ruling of the Dubai Court of First Instance of 15 February 2017) had, in one sense or another, pronounced a death sentence over the DIFC Courts’ competence to hear actions for recognition and enforcement of domestic awards for onward execution against assets of an award creditor in onshore Dubai. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Kacper Pempe
April 3, 2018

A clash of national and international law? Examining the approach of the English High Court in GPF v Poland

In what appears to be a first for the English courts, the decision in GPF Gp S.á.r.l v Republic of Poland overturned parts of an award on jurisdiction in an investment treaty arbitration, finding the tribunal had erred in finding no jurisdiction. The claims have been sent back to the same tribunal for continuation towards the liability phase.

This post examines the English Commercial Court’s application of international law principles on the domestic plane, as well as the de novo standard of review adopted by the court to analyse the claimant’s jurisdictional objections. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Scott Audette
March 29, 2018

The GDPR and disclosure of documents in arbitration

Data security is a hot topic at the moment. Putting to one side the lurid details of the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook debacle, many lawyers are focused on the (perhaps less thrilling but nonetheless important) provisions of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which comes into force in May of this year. Much has been written about the GDPR and its potential consequences (and costs) for companies and individuals. The extensive duties placed on data controllers and processors, and the potential for significant penalties, has given rise to a burgeoning consultancy industry aimed at managing and reducing risk. One aspect that has perhaps received less attention, however, is the extent to which EU data protection rules might affect disclosure of documents in arbitration proceedings. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Dado Ruvic
March 26, 2018

Interim court assistance in arbitral proceedings under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996: a reducing or expanding jurisdiction?

The English courts have traditionally followed the principle of non-intervention in arbitral proceedings. This non-interventionist stance was given statutory force under section 1(c) of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), which provides that “the court should not intervene except as provided by [the Arbitration Act 1996]”. Continue reading →

REUTERS | Juan Carlos Ulate
March 23, 2018

Daewoo Shipbuilding v Songa: clarification of Catch 22?

In Joseph Heller’s novel, Catch 22, the main character feigns madness in order to avoid dangerous combat missions, but his desire to avoid them is taken to prove his sanity.

Whilst not quite causing madness, for a number of years now parties and the courts have been grappling with the problematic inter-relationship between sections 57 and 70 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).

The decision of Bryan J in Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Company Ltd v Songa Offshore Endurance Ltd appears to resolve that problem. Continue reading →