Arbitration Links - Linklaters

An introduction to the relationship between smart contracts and international dispute resolution mechanisms

19 June 2018 Matthew Weiniger, Africa; Asia-Pacific; Europe; Latin America; Middle East; North America


In this video blog, Matthew Weiniger QC, our Global Co-Head of International Arbitration, takes a look at one of the oft-cited advantages of smart contracts and distributed ledger technology; namely their ability to reduce, or even eliminate, the potential for disputes. Matthew examines whether this is really true, and why parties should still be thinking about building conventional dispute resolution mechanisms into such structures.

View full article

Interview with Matthew Weiniger and Campbell McLachlan on International Investment Arbitration – Substantive Principles, Second Edition

14 June 2018 Matthew Weiniger, Africa; Asia-Pacific; Europe; Latin America; North America


Last month, Dispute Resolution Partner and Global Co-Head of International Arbitration, Matthew Weiniger was interviewed, together with Professor Campbell McLachlan of the Victoria University of Wellington, by The Arbitration Station.  They were discussing the second edition of their book International Investment Arbitration – Substantive Principles, co-authored with Laurence Shore. In the interview, Matthew and Campbell describe their objectives behind the text and how developments have shaped investment arbitration in the 10 years since the first edition was published.

View full article

English Court of Appeal considers grounds for removing an arbitrator

06 June 2018 Alex Hannington, England & Wales; Europe


The English Court of Appeal in Halliburton Co v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (and others) [2018] EWCA Civ 817 accepted that an arbitrator’s acceptance of multiple appointments concerning overlapping subject matter, without disclosure, did not provide grounds for his removal under s.24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”).

View full article

English Court of Appeal considers “public policy” exception to enforcement of an Award

In RBRG Trading (UK) Limited v Sinocore International Co Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 838 an Award debtor (“RBRG”) argued that enforcement of an international arbitration award (an “Award”) under the New York Convention would be contrary to English “public policy”.

Finality is one of the key advantages of arbitration. However, if enforcing an Award would offend English public policy then enforcement may be refused by the English Courts. For example, Awards obtained by perjury or fraud can be susceptible to challenge. If an Award is otherwise tainted by illegality (for example, if the underlying contract is illegal), its enforcement may also offend English public policy. The determination of illegality and its effect on enforcement is a matter on which judicial guidance is always welcome.

29 May 2018 Mikhail Vishnyakov, England & Wales; Europe

View full article

Award need not be deferred pending determination of same issues in another forum

In SCM Financial Overseas Ltd v Raga Establishment Ltd [2018] 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.

21 May 2018 Mikhail Vishnyakov, England & Wales; Europe

View full article

LCIA Casework Report

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.

17 May 2018 Sadie Buls; Stephen Lacey, England & Wales

View full article

English Commercial Court considers arbitration clause in implied contract in s.67 challenge

In SEA2011 Inc v ICT Ltd [2018] 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”.

09 May 2018 Stephen Lacey; Sadie Buls, England & Wales; Europe

View full article

This site uses cookies, if you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies. Click here to learn how to change your cookie settings.