The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Court has jurisdiction to compel the evidence of third party witnesses in arbitration proceedings under s. 44(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996. However, the Court’s jurisdiction against third parties in respect of other powers under s. 44 remains an open question for future judicial development. Introduction England and Wales has long been known as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. That reputation is in part founded upon the tools available…
In The Republic of Korea v Mohammed Reza Dayyani and others [2019] EWHC 3580 (Comm), the English High…
As the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to spread across the world, businesses are facing significant levels of…
UNITED KINGDOM Kate Corby, Judith Mulholland and Katia Contos A. LEGISLATION AND RULES A.1 Legislation International arbitration in England and Wales[1] continues to be governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Arbitration Act). There have been no amendments to the Arbitration Act since those amendments made to reflect the consequential references to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Discussions around potential reform of the Arbitration Act continue, however to date no suggested amendments to the Arbitration…
The LCIA’s 2018 Casework Report provides another interesting snapshot of LCIA arbitration in numbers, including improvements in a…
The English High Court has confirmed in Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Company Ltd v Songa Offshore Equinox…
The Commercial Court has upheld a challenge under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”) to an arbitral award in which the Tribunal ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute. The Tribunal’s decision was based upon its interpretation of the arbitration clause in a Russian language contract governed by English law, the meaning of which was ambiguous in translation. The case of A v B [2018] EWHC 1370 (Comm) underscores the care…
The case of Agile Holdings Corp v Essar Shipping Ltd[1] clarifies the circumstances in which the court can…
In April 2018, the Court of Appeal issued its decision in Halliburton Company v (1) Chubb Bermuda Insurance…
The rejection of SCM Financial Overseas Ltd’s (“SCM”) challenge to an US$ 860 million award in favour of Raga Establishment Ltd (“Raga”) on the grounds of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”) reinforces the difficulty of challenging the outcome of arbitral proceedings. In the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Males has dismissed SCM’s challenge, in which SCM alleged that the arbitrators neglected their duty of fairness under section 33 AA…