Arbitration Law Monthly

In Petrochemical Logistics Ltd and Another v PSB Alpha AG and Another [2020] EWHC 975 (Comm); [2020] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 645 the claimants sought a freezing injunction under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to preserve disputed assets pending the commencement of Swiss arbitration proceedings. The questions for the court were whether the criteria for the grant of an injunction were satisfied and, if so, whether it was appropriate for the English court to intervene in a Swiss arbitration.

CPR Part 62 sets out the standard directions applicable to an appeal against an arbitration award under sections 67 to 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Province of Balochistan v Tethyan Copper Co Pty Ltd [2020] EWHC 938 was an application by the appellant for a variation of the standard directions, the effect of which would have been to allow the appellant to introduce fresh evidence not referred to in the original claim form and to require a hearing on the issues raised.

The questions before Foxton J in A v B [2020] EWHC 2790 (Comm); [2021] Lloyd's Rep Plus 10 were whether the defendant was in breach of a Settlement Agreement and Consent Award and, if so, whether it had been varied by the conduct of the parties thereafter. The jurisdiction of the court to determine those issues on an application under section 66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 for summary enforcement did not arise on the facts, as the jurisdiction was not contested, but the judgment nevertheless considers the issues and makes some important point about the effect of consent awards.

An arbitrator can be removed under section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996 if, amongst other things, “circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality” and if the arbitrator has failed “properly to conduct the proceedings”. The cases show that dismissal is a rare event. The authorities were considered by Henshaw J in C Ltd v D and Another [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm); [2020] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 119, where the key issue was whether the arbitrator was liable to pay the costs of removal proceedings in circumstances where the arbitrator resigned for other reasons before judgment: the question thus became whether, but for the resignation, it was tolerably clear that the application would have been successful.

The problem of conflicting arbitration and jurisdiction clauses was addressed by Chual Lee Ming J in the Singapore High Court in Silverlink Resorts Ltd v MS First Capital Insurance Ltd [2020] SGHC 251. The judge’s conclusion was that it was possible to give effect to each by treating the matters within the jurisdiction clause as carved out from the arbitration clause.

This article summarises the most noteworthy cases in relation to arbitration handed down by the Hong Kong courts in 2020. It also addresses the new Supplemental Arrangement Concerning Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between Mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, signed by the Department of Justice of the HKSAR Government and the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China on 27 November 2020. This analysis is prepared by Edward Liu, Maggie Lee and Andy Hong of Hill Dickinson Hong Kong.