On 9 January 2017, the Singapore Court of Appeal handed down judgment in L Capital Jones Ltd and another v Maniach Pte Ltd. The case concerned a shareholder dispute and raised a number of legal issues. However, of most interest for the international arbitration community was the court’s ruling on the arbitrability of the respondent’s claim, which followed its earlier decision in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd v Silica Investors Ltd, delivered on 26 October 2015. Continue reading
In November 2009, President Obama formally announced the intention of the US to participate in the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), a free-trade agreement tracing its origins to a 2005 pact between New Zealand, Brunei, Chile and Singapore. Negotiations were completed six years later on 5 October 2015. On 4 February 2016, 12 Pacific-rim countries (New Zealand, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Singapore, the US and Vietnam) signed the TPP. The original signatories of the TPP represent approximately 36% of the world’s GDP. The TPP’s objectives included: Continue reading
The issue
The debate over whether there should be a systematic publication of arbitral awards is not new, but it has received increased attention over the last couple of years. Continue reading
English-seated arbitral tribunals have a great degree of flexibility in determining the applicable rules of privilege. Continue reading
On 11 January 2017, the Swiss government released its long-awaited draft bill on the revision of Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act for public consultation. It governs international arbitration proceedings in Switzerland. The draft bill is intended to adapt the existing law to align it with case law developed by the Swiss Supreme Court over the last three decades. The consultation will end on 31 May 2017. The draft bill will then be submitted to the Swiss parliament.
Amongst the proposed amendments that are likely to spark debate is one concerning the language of setting-aside proceedings. Continue reading
In May 2014, against the backdrop of vociferous debate about the nature of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and investment protection, the EU launched a consultation on its approach to substantive investment protections and ISDS in the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Notably, the European Commission’s consultation document focused on the balance between the right to regulate and substantive investment protections. It proposed a number of changes to features of investor-state arbitration. The “core issues” identified by the Commission from the responses appeared to be premised on the continuation of ISDS in a reformed version. Continue reading
It is no secret that arbitration can be expensive. Clearly, many parties do not take this into account when agreeing to an arbitration clause in a contract. But can the fact that the proceedings turn out to be too expensive for one of the parties be a ground for walking away from the agreed method of dispute resolution? Continue reading
India has been largely the land of ad-hoc arbitration. Independent of the reasons often mooted, domestic institutions like the International Centre for Alterntive Dispute Resolution (ICADR) and the Indian Council of Arbitration (ICA) have had limited success and the only international institution, London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) sponsored LCIA India, recently wound up after having struggled to float in the Indian market. Despite the state of arbitral institutions, the number of arbitrations, both domestic and international, has swelled. And a bulk of this swell has been ad-hoc in nature. With a view to promoting institutional arbitration, the Government of India, in December 2016, set up a high powered committee, chaired by former Supreme Court Judge BN Srikrishna. Staffed with former judges, senior advocates and policy mandarins, the committee’s mandate is to examine and recommend ways to institutionalise international arbitration in India. Continue reading
“You’re the voice, try and understand it,
Make a noise and make it clear.” John Farnham
On 2 February 2017, Hogan Lovells hosted a joint event with ArbitralWomen entitled “Winning Communication” in which a panel, including Julianne Hughes-Jennett, partner at Hogan Lovells, Tessa Wood, Senior Voice & Communication Coach at City Academy, Wendy Miles QC, global head of arbitration at Boies, Schiller and Flexner, and expert accountant Liz Perks, partner at Haberman Ilett, answered questions posed by Kate Wilford, senior associate at Hogan Lovells. Continue reading
Norton Rose Fulbright hosted a fascinating event last week focussing on the comparative risks and rewards of arbitrating in a number of jurisdictions, including Russia, Dubai, India, London, Singapore and Hong Kong. Continue reading