Arbitration Links - Linklaters
  • Year: 2017
  • Month: July

ICSID Rule Amendment Project

27 July 2017 Sadie Buls, Asia-Pacific; Europe; Latin America; Middle East; North America

Tags

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) recently launched a webpage for a rule amendment project. The page will track the progress of the latest round of ICSID rule amendments, the process for which began in October 2016 when ICSID sought comments on potential amendments from member states. This was followed by ICSID’s invitation to the public in January 2017 for suggestions for rule amendments.

View full article

When, under English law, can damages be reduced for benefits obtained following a breach of contract?

20 July 2017 Francesca Fraser, England & Wales

Tags

On 28 June 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down judgment in Globalia Business Travel SAU (formerly TravelPlan SAU) of Spain v Fulton Shipping Inc "The New Flamenco" [2017] UKSC 43 in which it unanimously allowed an appeal on a point of English law under s.69 Arbitration Act 1996 (the "Act"). The case concerned the extent to which benefits obtained by an innocent party following a breach of contract should be taken into account in assessing its damages for that breach.

View full article

English court allows challenge to New York Convention award based on contravention of public policy arising from fraud

12 July 2017 Joanne Finnegan, England & Wales

Tags

The High Court has allowed a claim that a New York Convention award was obtained by fraud to go to trial, even though it was upheld by the seat's courts.

View full article

English Commercial Court rejects suggestion that appointment of an arbitrator in related arbitrations constitutes apparent bias

06 July 2017 Charlotte Luker-Coombs, England & Wales; Europe

Tags

The recent case of H v L & Others [2017] EWHC (Comm) 137 confirms that the appointment of an arbitrator in related references (and his/her failure to disclose those appointments) will not of itself create an appearance of bias so as to justify his/her removal under s.24(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”). The judgment summarises the test for apparent bias in an English seated arbitration and emphasises the integrity and impartiality of arbitrators as a central tenet of the same.  Separately, Popplewell J has also confirmed that orders granted pursuant to powers under the Act cannot be varied under CPR 3.1(7).

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