21 May 2018 Mikhail Vishnyakov, England & Wales; EuropeTags
In SCM Financial Overseas Ltd v Raga Establishment Ltd  EWHC 1008 the English High Court held that a Tribunal’s decision not to defer its Award pending judgment from a foreign court on the same issues did not render the Award susceptible to challenge for “serious irregularity” pursuant to Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
Although the Tribunal could have deferred its Award, the decision on whether to do so fell within the Tribunal’s legitimate discretion. In this case, the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion and the challenge was therefore dismissed.
View full article
17 May 2018 Sadie Buls; Stephen Lacey, England & WalesTags
The LCIA released its 2017 Casework Report on 10 April 2018. The Report analyses the statistics from the LCIA 2017 caseload and contains a range of data broken down by sector, contract type and time elapsed since the underlying agreement was reached.View full article
09 May 2018 Stephen Lacey; Sadie Buls, England & Wales; EuropeTags
In SEA2011 Inc v ICT Ltd  EWHC 520 (Comm), London’s Commercial Court rejected three challenges to an arbitrator’s jurisdiction, two based on the identification of the parties to the arbitration clause and one based on the nature of the contract. The judgment is an interesting illustration of how, when English law applies, ordinary rules of contract can assist in identifying both the parties to a contract and whether an arbitration clause is incorporated where that contract is “implied”.
View full article
Announcing the launch of TradeLinks, the Linklaters international trade law blog
The Linklaters International Trade Practice has launched a regular blog that will look at a wide range of topics that span the area of international trade including Brexit and its impact on the UK’s international trade position, trade wars, tariffs and trade disputes.
03 May 2018 Matthew Weiniger, Africa; Asia-Pacific; Europe; Latin America; Middle East; North AmericaView full article
Interim relief available from Australian Courts in disputes subject to arbitration
In an unanimous decision, the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd v Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd  NSWCA 291 (“Kawasaki v LORAC”) has upheld an order for an interlocutory injunction against the appellant, subject to an order made by an arbitral tribunal (that had not yet been constituted). Both parties had agreed to have all disputes except interlocutory relief determined by international arbitration with seat in Singapore pursuant to the ICC Rules and governed by Singapore law. Allens Partner Nick Rudge, Managing Associate Hilary Birks and Lawyer Jamil Diu report.
02 May 2018 Nick Rudge; Hilary Birks; Jamil Diu, Australia; SingaporeView full article
Intra-EU investment arbitration post-Achmea: A look at the additional remedies offered by the ECHR and EU law
In its landmark Achmea case, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) found the arbitration provision of the bilateral investment treaty (“BIT”) between the Netherlands and Slovakia to be incompatible with EU law (see our previous post for a first analysis).
This decision potentially affects the roughly 200 BITs concluded between the EU Member States, although its overall implications are far from clear. Against that background, however, investors in EU Member States who object to State measures which have impacted their investments elsewhere in the EU might be expected to look for additional routes to a remedy. What might these be? Two which stand out for closer analysis in particular are the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) and the fundamental principles of EU law.
24 April 2018 Guillaume Croisant; Xavier Taton, EuropeView full article
Successful challenge on basis of serious irregularity – A tribunal’s failure to deal with contribution claim
In P v D & Ors  EWHC 3273 (Comm), London’s Commercial Court upheld a challenge to a London Court of International Arbitration award brought under s.68 Arbitration Act 1996 for serious irregularity. The claimant sought remission of the award on the basis that the Tribunal failed to deal with all the issues that were put to it (in particular, it failed to consider the claimant’s contribution claim in the proceedings), thereby causing the claimant substantial injustice. In its judgment, the Court identified a number of errors in the Tribunal’s award and provided guidance on when a LCIA Tribunal can exercise post-award powers to make corrections or issue additional awards under the LCIA Rules.
13 April 2018 Sadie Buls, England & WalesView full article