Podcast- multi-tier dispute resolution clauses and arbitration

In this short podcast, Partner, Craig Tevendale and Professional support lawyer, Hannah Ambrose, look at multi-tier dispute resolution clauses involving arbitration. The podcast considers the benefits of these clauses (also known as escalation clauses), the approach taken by the courts in a number of different jurisdictions and key considerations for drafting.

For further information or to suggest topics for future podcasts, please contact Craig Tevendale, Partner, Hannah Ambrose, Professional Support Lawyer, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

You may also be interested in our previous podcasts “Arbitration in Multi-Party and Multi-Contract Scenarios – What You Need to Know”, and “Unilateral Arbitration Clauses: Enforcement Issues and Drafting”. You may also be interested in Herbert Smith Freehills’ ADR Practical Guide on the use of mediation with arbitration.

An article published in the Turkish Commercial Law Review entitled “Multi-tier dispute resolution clauses and Arbitration” by Craig Tevendale, Hannah Ambrose and Vanessa Naish is available here.

 

Craig Tevendale
Craig Tevendale
Partner
Email | Profile
+44 20 7466 2445
Hannah Ambrose
Hannah Ambrose
Professional Support Lawyer
Email
+44 20 7466 7585

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration clauses, Podcast, Podcasts

Head of India Arbitration Practice, Nick Peacock, comments on India’s draft Model BIT 2015 for CNBC TV18’s “The Firm”

As reported in our recent blog post here, India has recently released a draft  “Model Text for the Indian Bilateral Investment Treaty” (“Model BIT“).  Head of the India Arbitration Practice, Nick Peacock was invited to comment on the Model BIT for CNBC TV18’s The Firm, India’s only television programme covering corporate law, M&A, financial regulation, tax and audit matters.

In the interview, Nick discusses a number of the provisions in the Model BIT, including the potentially broad scope of the exclusions which could impact the protection offered to investors, the removal of the “Most-Favoured Nation” provision found in India’s 2003 Model BIT and in many hundreds of bilateral investment treaties entered into across the globe, and the more limited national treatment provisions.  Nick also comments on the implications of the Model BIT for Indian investors seeking protection for their investments outside India.

The programme can be accessed here.

To discuss the implications of the Model BIT or investment protection more generally, please contact Nick Peacock, Partner, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Nicholas Peacock
Nicholas Peacock
Partner
Email | Profile
+44 20 7466 2803

Leave a Comment

Filed under India, Investment Arbitration, News, Public International Law

States lose immunity by taking steps in proceedings in the English Courts to challenge an arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction

In an appeal in a case considering the interrelation between arbitration and state immunity, on an application by France and Spain (the States), the English Court of Appeal (the Court) refused to reverse the decision of the High Court which granted permission to enforce two arbitral awards (the Awards) against the States under s66 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act).

The States argued that they benefitted from immunity from the jurisdiction of the English courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 (the SIA). The Court found that in bringing an application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal under s67 and s72 of the Act, the States had taken steps in the proceedings other than for the sole purpose of preserving immunity. The States had been deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction.

On a practical level, the decision demonstrates the need for states to consider carefully their strategy in responding to proceedings brought against them, if they do not wish to risk losing the general immunity granted by the SIA.

The case has been considered on our Public International Law blog. Please click here for the case summary and comment.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration Act 1996, Sovereign Immunity

French Supreme Court finds that tribunal acted within Terms of Reference

In Cass. Civ. 1, n° 14-12.077, 18 March 2015, Semapa Investimento E Gestao SGPS v CRH PLC, the French Supreme Court considered an appeal from a Paris Court of Appeal decision dismissing an application to set aside an ICC arbitral award.

The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) has dismissed an appeal against a Paris Court of Appeal decision refusing to set aside an ICC arbitral award rendered under a shareholders’ agreement. In the underlying proceedings, the claimant had argued that the tribunal had acted ultra petita, failed to respect principles of due process, and violated international public policy.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal decision in its entirety, finding that the tribunal had acted within the authority granted by the Terms of Reference and had not violated due process. Further, the Court of Appeal had not misinterpreted the claimant’s submissions and had been entitled to conclude that recognition and enforcement of the award would not be contrary to public policy.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not break new ground. However, it is an important reaffirmation of the principle that, in circumstances where a tribunal has respected the authority granted to it by the Terms of Reference, and asked the parties to express their views on the relevant issues, an award will not normally be open to attack in the French courts on the grounds of violation of due process. (Cass. Civ. 1, n° 14-12.077, 18 March 2015, Semapa Investimento E Gestao SGPS v CRH PLC.)  Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Challenges to awards, Europe

Leaked Investment Chapter of the TPP and draft Model India BIT: two very different approaches to investment protection standards and Investor State dispute Settlement (ISDS)

In the past week the Indian Government has issued a draft model BIT for comment and Wikileaks as leaked a 20 January draft of the Investment Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

There is considerable on-going public debate surrounding the right of states to regulate, the extent of the protections offered to investors and the availability and format of ISDS. The past week has provided a fascinating opportunity to compare how this debate is affecting different states in terms of the drafting and negotiation of trade and investment protection treaties.

We have analysed both the TPP and India model BIT texts in the context of this debate on our Public International Law blog. For regular updates on investor-state dispute resolution and other public international law issues, please do subscribe.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Investment Arbitration, Public International Law

PRC Supreme Court clarifies application of limitation period for enforcing foreign-related arbitral awards

In a recently published case, the Supreme People’s Court (the “SPC“) of the People’s Republic of China has confirmed that the two-year limitation period for a party to apply to a PRC court for enforcing a foreign-related arbitral award shall start to run from the date on which the award creditor discovers that a foreign counterparty has property located within the territory of China (Shanghai Jwell Machinery Co., Ltd. v Retech Aktiengesellschaft, Switzerland, SPC Guiding Case No. 37). Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Asia, Enforcement, Hong Kong & China

ICC YAF identifies the application of psychology as a novel approach in international arbitration

A paper addressing the application of psychology to international arbitration, submitted by Herbert Smith Freehills Senior Associate Ula Cartwright-Finch, was selected for presentation at the ICC Young Arbitrators Forum (YAF) – Young Austrian Arbitration Practitioners (YAAP) Joint Conference: “Young approaches to arbitration”, on 28 March 2015.    Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Hong Kong & China, News

The Singapore Court adopts a pragmatic approach in its consideration of various aspects of a jurisdictional challenge

In the case of AQZ v ARA , the Singapore High Court has provided useful guidance and clarification on a number of procedural issues relating to jurisdictional challenges which will be of interest to arbitration practitioners both in Singapore and worldwide. The decision provides clarity in relation to the following points:

  1. Where parties have agreed to arbitration under a particular set of institutional rules without any caveat, they agree to submit to all the provisions contained in those rules, even if some of them conflict with other aspects of their agreement, or certain aspects of the procedure fall within the discretion of an arbitrator or the institution. If parties do not wish to agree to future changes in rules, they should specify which particular the version of the rules they want to apply. Further, if, in the context of the SIAC rules, parties want to have their dispute heard by three arbitrators if the Expedited Procedure is invoked, they should make explicit provision for this in their arbitration clause.
  2. In a jurisdictional challenge, although the Court will undertake a “de novo” hearing of an arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction, this does not mean that oral evidence and cross-examination will be appropriate in every application, even where there are substantial disputes of fact. This pragmatism is welcome, particularly for those on the receiving end of jurisdictional challenges, as the Court’s willingness to rely on material from the arbitration could save significant time and costs in defending such challenges.
  3. In Model Law jurisdictions, once an award on the merits has been handed down, a party who seeks to set it aside on jurisdictional grounds must do so under Article 34 of the Model Law. Article 16(3) of the Model Law is a separate process that only applies to decisions on preliminary questions. If a party wishes to be able to challenge a tribunal’s ruling on jurisdiction shortly after it is handed down, it must ask for that ruling to be given as a preliminary question which does not also deal with the substantive issues in dispute.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration rules, Asia, Jurisdiction, South East Asia

Company vs Country: BBC documentary on investor-state dispute settlement on BBC Radio 4 tonight

After decades of governments concluding international investment agreements, reservations concerning free trade agreements (such as the TTIP, between the US and the EU) have led to unprecedented levels of public debate, focussing largely on the proposed inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions.

Matthew Weiniger QC was interviewed for a BBC Radio 4 programme to be broadcast at 8pm tonight, titled “Company vs Country“. It will discuss the nature of investment protections and ISDS, including the high profile investor-state disputes which are relied on as evidencing the alleged threat ISDS poses to democracy.

The programme will be available here shortly after the broadcast.

For further information, please contact Matthew Weiniger QC, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Matthew Weiniger QC
Matthew Weiniger QC
Partner
Email | Profile
+44 20 7466 2364

Leave a Comment

Filed under Investment Arbitration, News, Public International Law

The Singapore High Court reiterates its reluctance to set aside arbitral awards except in “egregious cases”

In the case of Coal & Oil Co. LLC v GHCL Ltd [2015] SGHC 65, the Singapore High Court took the opportunity to reinforce that a party seeking to set aside an arbitral award on the grounds of breach of natural justice is a serious matter requiring a high evidential threshold, and will be limited to only “egregious cases where the error is clear on the face of the record.”

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Asia, Awards, Challenges to awards, South East Asia