Arbitration Links - Linklaters

English Commercial Court rejects section 68 application based on inadequate reasons in arbitral award

23 August 2019 Andrew Clark, England & Wales

Tags

In Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Ors v Broadsheet LLC [2019] EWHC 1832 (Comm), the English High Court dismissed an application made under section 68 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 (the “Act”), holding that insufficient reasoning by arbitrators in their award does not amount to a serious irregularity under section 68(2)(c) or (h) of the Act.

View full article

Foreign Arbitral Institutions enter the Russian Arbitration market

12 August 2019 Valeria Romanova, Russia

Tags

As reported in an earlier blog post, significant amendments to the Law on Arbitration came into force in Russia back in September 2016.

One of the key changes brought about by the arbitration reform includes the introduction of a new regime for recognition of arbitral institutions established by various industry associations (those being non-commercial organisations) as “permanent arbitral institutions” (“PAIs”). This process is subject to the forum meeting statutory conditions and receiving an approval from the Russian Government to perform these functions.

View full article

Experts publish “toolkit” to help arbitrators deal with issues of corruption and money laundering

06 August 2019 Adrien Canivet, Asia-Pacific; Europe; Latin America; Middle East; North America

Tags

On 30 May, the University of Basel’s Competence Centre - Arbitration and Crime and the Basel Institute on Governance (a not-for profit organisation) jointly published a toolkit to assist arbitrators dealing with issues or corruption and money laundering. The toolkit is the product of a 2-year consultation process involving regulators, arbitrators, lawyers, forensics, and academics.

It is commonplace to say that arbitrators confronted with allegations or suspicions of economic crime face difficult challenges as they must balance their duties to the parties with public policy rules and lack the investigative powers of the state. The purpose of the toolkit is to help arbitrators address these challenges in a comprehensive manner and find solutions in accordance with applicable laws. This article summarises its key aspects.

View full article

The latest on ICSID’s Rule Amendment Project

Last month, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) published its second compendium of state and public comments on proposed amendments to its procedural rules for resolving international investment disputes. This is the latest development in ICSID’s rule amendment project which was formally launched in 2017.  

24 July 2019 Sadie Buls, Africa; Asia-Pacific; Europe; Latin America; North America

View full article

Anti-arbitration injunctions considered by the English Court of Appeal

In Sabbagh v Khoury and others [2019] EWCA Civ 1219, the Court of Appeal reviewed the extent to which an English court may grant an injunction to restrain parties from participating in an arbitration with an overseas seat.

18 July 2019 Stephen Lacey, England & Wales; Europe

View full article

English High Court sets aside award as tribunal failed to act fairly and impartially

In P v D and Ors [2019] EWHC 1277 (Comm), the English High Court granted an application made under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”), on the basis that the arbitrators were in breach of their duty under Section 33 of the Act to act fairly and impartially.

08 July 2019 Benja Arnott, England & Wales

View full article

Micula Case: The General Court Quashes the Commission’s Decision and Rules that the Award is Not State Aid

In a striking new episode of the long-running Micula saga, the General Court of the CJEU has quashed the European Commission’s 2015 decision that Romania’s payment of the €178 million award rendered by an ICSID tribunal back in 2013 would constitute illegal State aid in the meaning of Article 107 of the TFEU. In its judgment rendered this week, the General Court considered that the award recognised a right to compensation for the investors existing before Romania’s accession to the EU. As a result, the Commission was precluded to apply EU State aid rules to this situation, at least with respect to the pre-accession period. The General Court’s decision can be appealed before the Court of Justice.

20 June 2019 Guillaume Croisant, 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.

Continue