Few practitioners in the arbitration field will not have heard of the judgment in Cofely Limited v Bingham and another. As noted in a number of places, Hamblen J (as he then was) in the Commercial Court gave a judgment in favour of removal of the defendant as arbitrator under section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) for apparent bias, unless the defendant resigned first. Continue reading

When the kings depart: costs and the removal of an arbitrator

Challenges to treaty awards on jurisdiction in the national courts: what is the appropriate standard of review?
What standard of review is appropriate when a court is seised with a challenge to an award on jurisdiction? Should the answer be any different when the court is addressing an investment treaty award rather than a commercial award? This blog post addresses two recent decisions by the courts in Singapore and Switzerland, which have brought these questions to the fore. Continue reading

Making waves: the decision in Essar v Norscot: a view from the Bar
The question
Can a successful claimant recover the costs of a funding agreement from the defendant? No in litigation but yes in arbitration, according to the Commercial Court in Essar Oilfields Services Limited v Norscot Rig Management PVT Limited. This decision has sent shockwaves through the arbitration community. Continue reading

Out of step with the market? The English court’s decision that third party funding can be awarded as “costs” to a successful claimant
As discussed in Robert Rothkopf’s recent blog post, the English court in Essar v Norscot has refused a challenge under section 68(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and held that a tribunal did not exceed its powers by including the costs of third party funding within a costs award. Continue reading

Expert determination versus arbitration: the Swiss approach
Expert determination, which has gained popularity in recent years as a faster and less formal alternative to arbitration, is an important element of dispute resolution in Switzerland (and elsewhere). Continue reading

Romania’s termination of its intra-EU BITs: a counterproductive move
In September 2015, it was reported that the Romanian President submitted draft legislation to the Parliament approving the termination of Romania’s 22 intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The main reason given for this move is the pressure the European Commission (Commission) has imposed on EU member states for several years now. Continue reading

How should the tribunal handle a “bad” expert?
“Bad” experts come in many shapes and sizes. You may recognise one or more of them:
- The partisan expert (or “hired gun”).
- The “badly-prepared” expert (either where the expert is at fault or where counsel has withheld certain evidence).
- The “under-qualified” expert.
- The expert who strays outside his or her area of true expertise.

The six challenges against L Yves Fortier QC, brought by Venezuela over the past five years in the case of ConocoPhillips Petrozuata BV and others v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela as a result of his association with Norton Rose, are well known, as is the fact that they have all been dismissed. Apart from their number, the challenges are notable because they bring to the fore some of the key dilemmas surrounding arbitrators (or indeed aspiring arbitrators) practising in large law firms, the misuse of challenges to arbitrators and the appropriate breadth of arbitrators’ disclosure. Continue reading

The Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration: will it really change international arbitration in India?
The arbitration environment in India has historically suffered from a number of issues, two of which have been particularly serious. The first has been the attitude of the courts towards arbitration. Over the years, there have been many complaints about delay in the courts doing anything at all about arbitration once seised, and about perceived interference to an unjustified extent in arbitration. These problems may be alleviated to some extent with the passage of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Courts Act, 2015 and the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (the 2015 Acts). Continue reading

Third party funding: opening up the Asian markets
A whole host of legal, practical and ethical issues potentially arise from the funding of arbitration claims. Those that have attracted most discussion so far include disclosure of funding arrangements to the tribunal or counterparties, funders’ potential liability for costs and security for costs, confidentiality issues, conflict of interest as between tribunal and funder, and potential breach of rules relating to champerty and maintenance. Continue reading