The United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) has experienced decades of economic growth and has emerged as a leading regional commercial hub, attracting large and numerous cross-border transactions. This has lead investors and parties into contracts in the UAE to commonly elect a foreign law, in particular English law, to govern the contractual relationship and to opt for a foreign jurisdiction or for arbitration as an alternative to litigation. Looking at the legal framework of the UAE,…
At the beginning of the year, the ICC announced that as of this year it will publish the…
Lord Thomas: Rebalancing the relationship between the courts and arbitration Lord Thomas’s Bailii Lecture on 9 March 2016…
In a recent Iranian gas contract dispute, the High Court of England and Wales rejected an attempt to set aside an arbitration award on the grounds of alleged corruption and bribery.[i] This judgment is a helpful reminder of how English courts deal with attempts to have awards set aside on this basis. However, the state of the relevant underlying English common law in this area is such that it should be closely watched.Yet another oil…
The court’s power to make appointments to an arbitral tribunal and the limitations it faces under the Arbitration…
In a recent PRC case (the “Taizhou Court Case”), the Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court (“Court”) refused enforcement of…
This article was first published in the China Business Law Journal, July / August 2016, Volume 7 | Issue 7 Improper service in arbitration proceedings has been commonly relied upon as a ground by PRC courts to set aside or refuse enforcement of arbitral awards made in China or overseas. What is less clear is when service is considered improper. PRC laws do not shed any light on the question. The rules of many arbitration…
In its report “Costs of arbitration and apportionment of costs under the SCC Rules” of February 2016[1], the…
This article is about two phenomena which currently impact the business of dispute resolution: The Vanishing Trial and…
A tribunal in an investment arbitration pursuant to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules between South American Silver Limited (“Claimant”) and The Plurinational State of Bolivia (“Bolivia”)[1] decided in several procedural orders on the question whether the parties are allowed to submit witness statements in redacted form. The most recent decision stems from 6 May 2016[2]. In its first decision of 1 April 2016[3] the tribunal had to decide whether to grant a protective order for one…