i-law

Arbitration Law Monthly

Stay of proceedings: arbitrability and minority shareholders

L Capital Jones Ltd and Another v Maniach Pte Ltd [2017] SGCA 03 is an important decision of the Court of Appeal of Singapore, a fact that underlies the importance of the decision. It is an appeal from the lengthy and closely-reasoned decision of Vinodh Coomaraswamy J, [2016] SGHC 65, and raises important issues as to the arbitrability of claims for relief by minority shareholders, loss of the right to seek a stay by an applicant who has allegedly taken a step in the judicial proceedings and the interpretation of arbitration clauses.
Online Published Date:  12 May 2017

Serious irregularity: award obtained by fraud

In Celtic BioEnergy Ltd v Knowles Ltd [2017] EWHC 472 (TCC) a challenge was made to an arbitration award for serious irregularity under section 68(2)(g), namely, that the award had been obtained by fraud. The alleged fraud in this case consisted of the respondent securing an award to the effect that it was no longer pursuing claims against a third party when in fact it was doing exactly the opposite.
Online Published Date:  23 October 2017

Removal of arbitrators: apparent bias

The English courts have accepted that an arbitrator may be removed for demonstrating actual bias or putting themselves in a position where there are circumstances which objectively give rise to the possibility of an appearance of bias. In H v L and Others [2017] EWHC 137 (Comm) the primary allegation – dismissed by the court – was that the arbitrator had wrongly accepted two subsequent appointments creating a risk of overlap but without disclosing those later appointments.
Online Published Date:  23 October 2017

Enforcement of arbitration awards: effect of setting aside by curial court

In the usual course of events, where a foreign arbitration award has been set aside by the curial court, the English courts will treat themselves as bound by the ruling of the court and will not recognise or enforce the award under the New York Convention as implemented by the Arbitration Act 1996. In Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company “Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat” [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm) the award holder tried to persuade the English court that the ruling of the Russian curial courts setting aside the award should not be recognised, by reason of the bias of those courts. Sir Michael Burton rejected the argument on the facts.
Online Published Date:  08 November 2017

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.