In a decision dated 7 May 2018, the Delhi High Court dismissed the Government of India’s application to declare Vodafone‚Äôs second BIT arbitration proceedings in relation to the retrospective tax liability imposed on Vodafone’s 2007 acquisition of Hutchison Whampoa‚Äôs Indian operations an abuse of process, and in so doing declined to grant a permanent injunction restraining Vodafone from continuing those arbitration proceedings. The Court granted liberty to India to bring the issue before the Tribunal in those second proceedings (under the India-UK Bilateral Investment Protection Agreement) for that Tribunal to decide on the alleged abuse of process on its own merits.
Delhi High Court refuses to grant injuction restraining Vodafone’s second BIT arbitration against India
Following our report on the Global Pound Conference series, which brought together over 4000 stakeholders at 28 conferences worldwide, our analysis of the Asia Pacific results reveals different demands in Asia and Oceania.
Six Asia Pacific cities hosted conferences to assess how dispute resolution can be improved: Singapore; Hong Kong; Chandigarh, India; Bangkok, Thailand; Sydney, Australia and Auckland, New Zealand. Each conference addressed the demand side (commercial party perspectives on dispute resolution); the supply side (what advisers and providers are delivering to commercial parties); the key obstacles and challenges; and what needs to be addressed to effect change.
In Asia the data revealed a clear desire for enhanced regulation of mediation compared to Oceania. At first blush, this could be said to be rooted in civil versus common law traditions. But only one of the Asian countries to host a GPC event, Thailand, has a civil-law system. The reason appears to be more complex: enhanced regulation, particularly around enforcement, would lend credibility to mediation in Asia as a viable alternative to litigation or arbitration. This is particularly so in the context of commercial cross-border disputes. UNCITRAL’s proposed New York-style Convention on the mutual recognition and enforcement of mediation settlement agreements is likely to be applauded in Asia and may hail an inflection point for the use of mediation.
ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS DISCLOSURE OF ARBITRAL APPOINTMENTS IN RELATED OR OVERLAPPING REFERENCES
In Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd  EWCA Civ 817, the English Court of Appeal was asked to consider:
- whether it is possible for an arbitrator to accept multiple appointments with overlapping reference and one common party, without giving rise to doubts over impartiality?
- at what point should an arbitrator disclose these further appointments ‚Äď if at all?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that, on the facts of the case, there was no real possibility that the arbitrator was biased when viewed from the perspective of a “fair minded and informed observer”. ¬†Nevertheless, the Court held that, in accordance with English law and best practice in international arbitration, disclosure should have been made. Continue reading
English High Court grants an anti-suit injunction and confirms that the choice of arbitral seat is “analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause”
In Atlas Power v National Transmission and Despatch Company Ltd  EWHC 1052 the English High Court granted a final anti-suit injunction to permanently restrain a national grid company owned by the Government of Pakistan (“NTDC“) from challenging an LCIA Partial Final Award in Pakistan (or anywhere other than England and Wales).
The injunction was granted on the “entirely straightforward” basis that the seat of the arbitration was London.¬† Phillips J rejected NTDC’s arguments that the courts of Pakistan had concurrent jurisdiction or that the seat of the arbitration was Lahore, Pakistan, and confirmed that an agreement on the seat of the arbitration is also an agreement on the forum for any challenges to an award.¬† Continue reading
The HKIAC has recently published its case statistics for 2017, showing a continued healthy demand for its services. The HKIAC saw a 15.7% increase in its caseload compared to 2016, with the total amount in dispute in HKIAC arbitrations doubling since last year. The statistics demonstrate that HKIAC maintains its position as one of the world’s leading arbitral institutions, serving parties throughout Asia and beyond. Continue reading
We are proud to celebrate the tenth year of the NUJS HSF National Corporate Law Moot Court Competition (“Moot“) this year. Since 2008, HSF and the WB National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata (“NUJS“) have worked together to host the Moot in Kolkata which sees participation from students from leading Indian universities. The Moot has grown to become one of the foremost competitions and to celebrate this milestone, we have published a book compiling the ten Moot problems. The book aims to showcase the problems that generations of Indian law students have dissected, together with forewords addressing the importance of mooting and oral advocacy.
In a recent decision, Goodwood Investments Holdings Inc. v Thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions AG  EWHC 1056 (Comm), the English court has considered a section 45 request for a ruling on a preliminary point of law. Requests of this nature are permissible under the Arbitration Act 1996, but are comparatively rare in practice. This was arguably a textbook example of a preliminary issue properly put before a court: did the parties’ without prejudice correspondence ‚Äď which the arbitrators should not review in any event ‚Äď constitute a binding settlement agreement?
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958, commonly referred to as the “New York Convention”. ¬†As one of the most successful international treaties of the 20th century, and a primary tool in the promotion of arbitration worldwide, the Convention established a regime to facilitate international enforcement of arbitration awards in 159 countries.
This event will discuss the impact of the Convention in Southeast Asia, and whether its objectives have been successful in practice. ¬†Following a keynote address by Justice Anselmo Reyes of the Singapore International Commercial Court, a series of presentations and panels will discuss the history of the Convention; how it shapes the day-to-day conduct of international arbitration; practical experience of enforcement in ASEAN states (with data from a new survey); and future prospects for similar regimes that aim to support international litigation and mediated settlements.
This event is jointly hosted by Singapore Management University (a premier university, internationally recognised for world-class research in the field of international arbitration); Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (a non-profit organization supported by the Ministry of Law, and Asia‚Äôs global thought leader for learning and research in negotiation and dispute resolution); and Herbert Smith Freehills (one of the world’s leading law firms, with a global reputation for international arbitration).
The event will be a SILE accredited CPD activity.
For more information on the programme and speakers, please click here.
Date:¬†¬†¬†¬† Tuesday, 12 June 2018
Time:¬†¬†¬†¬† Registration: 4:30pm
Event: 5:00pm to 7:30pm, followed by a cocktail reception
1 Marina Boulevard
Level 7, Stephen Riady Auditorium @ NTUC
Please RSVP by¬†Tuesday, 29 May 2018¬†to secure your seat.¬†Spaces are limited and will be offered on a first come, first served basis.
On 3 May 2018, HH Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the President of the United Arab Emirates, issued Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 promulgating the country’s much anticipated new Federal Arbitration Law (the “New Law“). The New Law, which is heavily based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, will replace and supersede Articles 203 to 218 of the Civil Procedures Code (Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 (as amended)) which currently govern arbitrations seated onshore in the UAE (the “Civil Procedure Code“).¬† The New Law applies to any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties have agreed that another law should apply, (Article 2) and to ongoing arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration agreement was concluded before the Law came into effect (Article 59).
The New Law will take affect one month after its date of publication in the Official Gazette.¬† This article highlights some of the most significant developments and identifies key similarities and differences between the New Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law on which it is based. Continue reading