Welcome to Linklaters' Arbitration blog where you can find insights, updates and news from our team of experts.
The English High Court decision of Bond v Mackay and others  EWHC 2475 (TCC) concerned a situation where, when a claimant sought to bring further issues before an arbitral tribunal, the court was asked to determine whether those issues fell...
Significant amendments to Russia’s arbitration laws (the “New Laws”) came into force back in September 2016. The New Laws are intended to create modern and effective mechanisms for domestic and international arbitration in Russia,...
In Dera Commercial Estate v Derya Inc  EWHC 1673 (Comm), the English Commercial Court provided useful guidance on when arbitration claims may be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay under s.41(3) Arbitration Act 1996 (the...
In Reliance Industries v Union of India  EWHC 822 Reliance Industries Limited and BG Exploration and Production India Limited (the “Claimants”) challenged awards made in favour of the Union of India (the “Government”)...
25 September 2018 Matthias Schelkens, Belgium; Europe
Linklaters’ Dispute Resolution team has contributed to the 2018 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 49 jurisdictions.
20 September 2018 Akshay Sewlikar, England & Wales; India
In Reliance Industries v Union of India  EWHC 822 Reliance Industries Limited and BG Exploration and Production India Limited (the “Claimants”) challenged awards made in favour of the Union of India (the “Government”) under the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “AA 1996”). The English High Court (the “Court”) had the opportunity to consider the issue of the applicability of the foreign act of state doctrine to English seated arbitration proceedings.
13 September 2018 Kirstin Schwedt, Europe
In a detailed decision, an ICSID tribunal hearing a dispute between Swedish Vattenfall and Germany over the state’s phase out of nuclear power in the wake of the Fukushima disaster (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/12) has maintained jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the Energy Charter Treaty (“ECT”). The decision follows objections raised by Germany after the Achmea-judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). We have previously reported on implications of Achmea for ECT-claims and the European Commissions’ view of the Achmea-judgment here.
See more articles
Use the filters above to browse through all of our articles and content on Arbitration Links
Register for Updates
View full profile
View full profile