Arbitration Law Monthly

Due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, the distribution of all Informa Law hardcopy publications will be temporarily halted.

Section 44(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the court has for the purposes of and in relation to arbitral proceedings the same power of making orders as it possesses for court proceedings in respect of a number of matters, including, in section 44(2)(a), the taking of the evidence of witnesses.

In AIC Ltd v The Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria [2019] EWHC 2212 (TCC) Veronique Buehrlen QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered whether an application to enforce a Nigerian arbitration award should be adjourned pending an appeal against the award in the Nigerian courts, and whether security should be granted as a condition of adjournment.

In Singapore, as in England, there is the right to challenge an arbitration award only where the tribunal has acted without jurisdiction or where it has been guilty of serious irregularity in the proceedings. Errors of law are not appealable at all in international arbitrations in Singapore, and are appealable in England only with the permission of the court. That restriction means that a party wishing to challenge an award may be tempted to try to classify what is, in effect, a substantive challenge as one based on jurisdiction or procedure.

In BSG Resources Ltd v Vale SA and Others [2019] EWHC 2456 (Comm) Moulder J considered three procedural questions arising out of an appeal against an arbitration award where an order for enforcement had been made: should security for the award be ordered; should security for the costs of the appeal be ordered; and should the enforcement order be set aside?