Arbitration Law Monthly

In Ever Judger Holding Co Ltd v Kroman Celik Sanayii Anonim Sirketi HCCT 6/2015 the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has confirmed the power of the Hong Kong courts to issue an anti-suit injunction in support of an arbitration clause. The case is discussed by Edward Yang Liu, Associate, Reed Smith Richards Butler.

Section 68(2)(b) and (c) of the Arbitration Act 1996 require an arbitral tribunal to act within its powers and to conduct the arbitration in accordance with the agreement of the parties. In Stockman Interhold SA v Arricano Real Estate plc [2015] EWHC 2979 (Comm) the primary allegation against a sole arbitrator was that, contrary to what had been agreed by the parties, he failed to regard himself as bound by the findings in an earlier arbitration between the parties in which he had participated as chairman of the tribunal. 

Two decisions of Akenhead J, Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd [2014] EWHC 4375 (TCC), and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Raytheon Systems Ltd (No 2) [2015] EWHC 311 (TCC), shed a good deal of light on the operation of section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 where it is alleged that the arbitrators have failed to decide all of the issues put to them.

The involvement of states in arbitration is an increasing feature of the arbitral process. State involvement is subject to the State Immunity Act 1978, which grants immunity from suit in the absence of agreement. The 1978 Act has featured in a number of recent applications to enforce arbitral awards, but it has wider ramifications.