- Home/Publications/Arbitration Law Monthly
Removal of arbitrator: qualifications
In Allianz
Insurance plc v Tonicstar Ltd [2018] EWCA
Civ 434 the Court of Appeal has reversed the first instance decision of Teare
J, [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 229 on the
question whether the qualification required for the appointment of an
arbitrator in respect of a reinsurance dispute – “experience of insurance or
reinsurance” – precluded the appointment of a highly experienced QC.
Online Published Date:
23 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 04 - 01 April 2018
Commencement of arbitration proceedings: service of notice of arbitration
In Sino Channel Asia Ltd v Dana Shipping & Trading Pte Singapore [2017] EWCA Civ 1703; [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 17, an appeal heard by Gross and Flaux LJJ, the question was whether service of arbitration proceedings upon a third party seemingly acting for the respondent amounted to a valid service on the respondent.
Online Published Date:
23 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 05 - 01 May 2018
Arbitration and third parties: estoppel and abuse of process
The Court of Appeal in Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2018] EWCA Civ 51 has upheld in part the first instance judgment of O’Farrell J, [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21 granting an anti-suit injunction to MWP from maintaining proceedings in New South Wales when many of the issues at stake had earlier been determined in an arbitration between the parties.
Online Published Date:
23 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 06 - 01 June 2018
Jurisdiction: removal of jurisdiction after commencement of arbitration
Exportadora de Sal SA de CV v Corretaje Maritimo Sud-Americano Inc [2018] EWHC 224 (Comm) raised the unusual situation in which there was an alleged removal of the jurisdiction of the arbitrator during the course of the arbitration.
Online Published Date:
23 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 08 - 01 September 2018
Enforcement of arbitration awards: third party debt orders and receivership orders
In Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Marketing Company of the Ministry of Oil, Republic of Iraq [2017] UKSC 64; [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 29 the Supreme Court by a 3:2 majority ruled that the claimant was unable to enforce in England an arbitration award obtained in Baghdad, by using third party debt orders and receivership orders.
Online Published Date:
23 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 05 - 01 May 2018
Interim relief: preservation of assets and evidence
Section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 permits the
English courts to grant orders preserving assets or evidence for an arbitration
in case of urgency and where the tribunal is unable to act. In Company 1 v Company 2 and Another [2017] EWHC 2319 (QB) the issue before HH Judge Saffman was not only
whether the matter was urgent, but also whether it was appropriate for the
English court to intervene to support an arbitration which had its seat in
Switzerland. The application failed on both counts.
Online Published Date:
23 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 04 - 01 April 2018
Jurisdiction: the parties to an arbitration agreement
It is common for disputes to arise as to whether a person is properly to be regarded as a party to an arbitration agreement. It is far less common for the same issue to arise in relation to both alleged parties. That was nevertheless the situation in SEA2011 Inc v ICT Ltd [2018] EWHC 520 (Comm); [2018] 1 Lloyd's Rep 463.
Online Published Date:
23 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 05 - 01 May 2018
Investment arbitration: compatibility with EU law
In Slovak Republic v Achmea BV Case C-284/16, the CJEU has confirmed that an arbitral tribunal is not a national court or tribunal for the purposes of the Treaty for European Union and accordingly cannot make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union for the determination of points of law relating to the Treaty.
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 06 - 01 June 2018
Duties of the tribunal: delegation of decisions to the tribunal secretary
In P v Q and Others [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm), Popplewell J considered the extent to which an arbitral tribunal can delegate its functions to the Secretary appointed by the tribunal. The judgment is a valuable one, as it is the first detailed analysis of the role of the Chairman and the Secretary in the conduct of contemporary international commercial arbitration.
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 06 - 01 June 2018
Jurisdiction: bilateral investment treaties
The decision of Bryan J in GPF GP Sarl v The Republic of Poland [2018] EWHC 409 (Comm) was a challenge under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to a ruling of an arbitral tribunal to the effect that there was no jurisdiction under a bilateral investment treaty to determine claims based upon various acts of the defendant which had the effect of reducing the value of land controlled by the claimant in Warsaw.
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 09 - 01 October 2018
Security for challenges to the award: security and litigation funders
Where a challenge is brought in the English courts to an arbitration award, the court may order the applicant to provide security for the costs of the arbitration (section 70(6) of the Arbitration Act 1996) and may also order the applicant to provide security for the sum awarded (section 70(7) of the 1996 Act).
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 07 - 01 August 2018
Jurisdiction: meaning of “substantive jurisdiction”
An appeal may be made against an arbitration award on jurisdictional grounds under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Section 67 applies only where the tribunal has erred in its approach to “substantive jurisdiction”, a term defined in section 30. The courts have construed section 30 narrowly, to prevent decisions on construction being converted into jurisdictional issues.
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 07 - 01 August 2018
Arbitration: service of arbitration proceedings
The question in Glencore Agriculture BV (Formerly Glencore Grain BV) v Conqueror Holdings Ltd (The Amity) [2017] EWHC 2893 (Comm) was whether service of arbitration proceedings by email upon the employee of the charterers who had been in email correspondence with the owners as to delay in loading constituted valid service.
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 07 - 01 August 2018
Appeals against awards: time limits and extension of time
In Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co Ltd v Songa Offshore Equinox Ltd and Another [2018] EWHC 538 (Comm) Bryan J readdressed the vexed question of exactly when the 28 days permitted by section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 to appeal against an award began to run where there had been an application to the arbitrators to correct their award under section 57 of the 1996 Act.
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 08 - 01 September 2018
Remission of award by the court: consequences of remission
The horrendously complicated facts of Stockman Interhold SA v Arricano Real Estate plc [2017] EWHC 2909 (Comm), facing Christopher Hancock QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, gave rise to an important and little-discussed question. Where an award is remitted to the arbitrator on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the proceedings, does the arbitrator obtain jurisdiction over matters arising after the issuing of the original award?
Online Published Date:
27 April 2018
Appeared in issue:
Vol 18 No 06 - 01 June 2018