Arbitration Links - Linklaters

New LCIA Report highlights movement towards cheaper and faster proceedings

18 October 2017 Jacqueline Chaplin, Europe


A recent London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”) report (the “Report”) suggests that LCIA arbitration costs are generally less than arbitration costs at other institutions at all levels of dispute (for the purposes of the Report, arbitration costs means tribunal fees and administrative charges). The cost savings offered by the LCIA may be explained by its commitment to time efficiency and its use of hourly rates to calculate most of its costs.

The Report analyses the cost and duration of all 224 cases administered under the LCIA Arbitration Rules that had reached a final award between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2016.

View full article

Linklaters contributes to International Comparative Legal Guide to Arbitration 2017

11 October 2017 Joost Verlinden; Matthias Schelkens, Belgium; Europe


Linklaters’ Dispute Resolution team has contributed to the 2017 edition of the International Comparative Legal Guide to International Arbitration. The Guide is a practical cross-border insight into international arbitration work and an overview of arbitration legislation and practice in 44 jurisdictions.

View full article

CIArb Consultation on Cost-Controlled Rules

05 October 2017 Sadie Buls, Asia-Pacific; Europe; Latin America; Middle East; North America


On 25 September 2017, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) opened a consultation period relating to a revised draft of its Arbitration Rules. The revision to the rules aims to incorporate a proposed additional appendix on the use of CIArb’s Cost-Controlled Expedited Arbitration Rules. The current version of those rules is dated 2014 and CIArb has stated that updates to other institution procedures, as well as developments in the sphere of cost controls in arbitration generally, have prompted it to review and update its existing rules. 

View full article

Paris Court of Appeal sets aside ECT arbitration award

The French courts have had very few opportunities to rule on the setting aside of an investment treaty arbitration award. For this reason, the decision of the Paris Court of Appeal in Moldova v société Komstroy (Court d'appel de Paris, Pôle 1- Chambre 1, République de Moldavie v société Komstroy, 12 avril 2016, n°13/22531) is of great interest. It deals with the degree of control over an investment arbitration award by the French courts and the definition of the legal concept of investment in the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).

03 October 2017 Clément Fouchard, France

View full article

Advocate General Wathelet endorses intra-EU BITs

In a much anticipated opinion in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV (Case C-284/16), Advocate General (“AG”) Wathelet has fostered investor-state arbitration under bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”) between EU Member States (“intra-EU BITs”) by concluding that the arbitration clause in Article 8 of the 1991 Netherlands-Slovakia BIT is compatible with EU law, and that arbitral tribunals established thereunder may refer issues of EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) for preliminary rulings.

27 September 2017 Julia Grothaus; Dr. Rupert Bellinghausen, Europe; Germany

View full article

Delhi High Court rejects RBI’s intervention in arbitration proceedings to which it is not a party

In April 2017, the Delhi High Court made a decision in the much-publicised dispute between Tata Sons Ltd. (“Tata”) and NTT Docomo Inc. (“Docomo”). The period for an appeal to be made lapsed at the end of July 2017 and the judgment is expected to be a shot in arm for investment in India for it answers some of the objections raised by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”), India’s Central Bank, on the enforcement of an arbitral award involving the outflow of money from India to non-resident entities as damages.

21 September 2017 Ben Carroll, India

View full article

Post-award challenges to impartiality and independence in Germany

Both the setting aside of arbitral awards and the impartiality and independence of arbitrators and experts are recurring topics in international arbitration. They particularly converge when facts giving rise to doubts about impartiality and independence become known only after an arbitral award has been rendered. In a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice abandoned long-standing German case law and set aside an award after an expert nominated by the arbitral tribunal had failed to disclose facts relating to his impartiality and independence. As the relevant statutory provisions apply to both experts and arbitrators, the decision will be highly relevant for challenge and enforcement proceedings in Germany.

13 September 2017 Julia Grothaus; Rupert Bellinghausen, Europe; Germany

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.