- Home/Publications/Arbitration Law Monthly
Correction of errors in award: scope of power of correction
In Xstrata Coal Queensland Pty Ltd v Benxi Iron & Steel (Group) International Economic & Trading Co Ltd [2016] EWHC 2022 (Comm) an application was made to Knowles J for an extension of time under section 79(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996. That provision, which is rarely used, permits the court to extend time for contractual – as opposed to statutory – applications. The application in the present case was for clarification of an award under article 27 of the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration, equivalent to the “slip rule” in section 57 of the 1996 Act.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 04 - 01 April 2017
Jurisdiction: validity of arbitration clause
In Yegiazaryanv Smagin [2016] EWCA Civ 1290 the Courtof Appeal heard an appeal from the judgment of Teare J on the meaning of adispute resolution clause. By common consent the arbitration clause was poorlydrafted and purported to bind a person who was not a party to the agreements towhich the clause related. The Court of Appeal agreed with Teare J that theprovision did indeed qualify as an arbitration clause.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 06 - 01 June 2017
Serious irregularity: alleged inconsistency in the award
PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia v Conocophillips (Grissik) Ltd and Another [2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm) involved an attempt by the claimant to overturn an award for serious irregularity on a number of the grounds listed in section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. As with many such challenges, the court took the view that there was little more than an attempt to rerun arguments that had failed in the arbitration.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 05 - 01 May 2017
Jurisdiction: law applicable to an arbitration clause
In BCY v BCZ [2016] SGHC 249 the question before Steven Chong J in the High Court of Singapore was whether the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement independently of negotiations for a sale and purchase agreement to which the arbitration provisions were intended to relate.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 05 - 01 May 2017
Stay of proceedings: costs of stay proceedings
Judicial proceedings commenced in breach of an arbitration clause constitute a breach of contract. It has been held by the Court of First Instance in Hong Kong, in Chimbusco International Petroleum (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Fully Best Trading Ltd HCA 2416/2014, that it is appropriate for the defendant who successfully seeks a stay of the proceedings to be awarded costs on an indemnity basis. The law in England is to the same effect. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu, Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 04 - 01 April 2017
Assignment of arbitration clauses: assignment in the course of the arbitration
Arbitration is by its nature consensual and betweenthe parties to the arbitration agreement. A question arising from time to timeis whether an arbitrating company that ceases to exist in the course of thearbitration and transfers its undertaking to a third party is entitled toassign the benefit of the arbitration clause.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 06 - 01 June 2017
The meaning of “arbitration agreement”: unilateral and optional clauses
The obligation of a Singapore court to stay its proceedings where there is a valid and applicable arbitration clause, under section 6 of the International Arbitration Act, is for all relevant purposes identical to the duty of the English court under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In each case, a stay can be refused only if there is no arbitration agreement or if the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 07 - 01 August 2017
Stay of proceedings: arbitrability and loss of right to seek a stay
Maniach Pte Ltd
v
L Capital Jones Ltd and Another [2016] SGHC 65, a lengthy and closely-reasoned decision of Vinodh Coomaraswamy J
in the High Court of Singapore, raises important issues as to the loss of the right to seek a stay by an applicant who has allegedly taken a step in the judicial proceedings. The increasingly familiar context is that of minority shareholder protection against unfair oppression.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 03 - 01 March 2017
Enforcement of arbitration awards: public policy
The public policy defence to the enforcement of arbitration awards is regularly pressed into service, although rarely succeeds. T v C [2016] HCCT 23/2015, a recent decision of the Court of First Instance of Hong Kong, is a further illustration of the justified suspicion of the courts to the defence. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu, Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 03 - 01 March 2017
Anti-suit injunctions: protecting the award
Anti-suit injunctions are most commonly granted to ensure that a party to an arbitration agreement does not commence judicial proceedings in breach of that agreement. However, anti-suit injunctions are also important where the issues between the parties have been resolved in arbitration and the dissatisfied party seeks to reopen them in judicial proceedings. Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2016] EWHC 3010 (Comm), a decision of O’Farrell J, is a good example of this jurisdiction in operation.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 03 - 01 March 2017
Enforcement of arbitration awards: security where enforcement is stayed
Hong Kong’s Arbitration Ordinance is in more or less identical terms to the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 relating to the staying of enforcement of an award pending a decision of the curial courts. A recent decision, Dana Shipping and Trading SA v Sino Channel Asia Ltd HCCT 47/2015, saw the Hong Kong Court of First Instance applying English law principles to the question of ordering security as a condition of stay. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu of Reed Smith Richards Butler, Hong Kong.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 03 - 01 March 2017
Jurisdiction: appeals against refusal to give permission to appeal
Where there is an appeal to the High Court against an award on the grounds of want of jurisdiction, under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, section 67(4) states that there can be an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the judge’s decision only if the judge himself gives permission to appeal. However, there is a limited exception in that principle, which operates where the judge has not reached a decision at all on the application for permission to appeal.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 02 - 01 February 2017
Serious irregularity: disregard of evidence
Pulis v Crystal Palace Football Club [2016] EWHC 2999 (Comm) appears to be yet another case where the serious irregularity challenges set out in section 68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 were invoked in an attempt to rerun the arbitration in court. The challenges were based on failure by the arbitrators to set out detailed reasons in their award for dismissing the claimant’s arguments, leading to allegations of unfairness in the procedure (section 68(2)(a)) and failure to determine all of the issues put to them (section 68(2)(d)).
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 03 - 01 March 2017
Appeals against the award: time limits and the extension of time
Under section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 a challenge to an award must be brought within 28 days of the date of the award. If the time limit is missed, the court has a discretion under section 80(5) of the 1996 Act to extend time. The circumstances in which time will be extended have been considered in a number of decisions, and there are now clear principles on the point.
Online Published Date:
06 January 2017
Appeared in issue:
Vol 17 No 02 - 01 February 2017