After reluctantly issuing an initial stay of enforcement in July 2018, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance recently dismissed an application by China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd (CZ) to further delay the enforcement of an arbitral award in favour of Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd (BS).
Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd v China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd [2019] HKFCI 68
Filed under Arbitration proceedings, Hong Kong & China
The new Rules on the Efficient Conduct of Proceedings in International Arbitration (Prague Rules) launched last month in the Czech Republic and aim to provide a more efficient framework for arbitral procedure which can be used to streamline a dispute, reducing delay and costs. Their approach is closer to civil law than common law traditions, with the tribunal pro-actively managing the dispute from the start.
As discussed in this post, Xiamen Xingjingdi Group Co Ltd (XJ) and various co-defendants affiliated with Eton Properties Ltd (together, EP) have been involved in a long-running dispute in multiple fora, including a PRC-seated CIETAC arbitration and several Hong Kong court proceedings. The case appears now to have come to an end, with the Court of Appeal (Court) confirming its position on common law actions to enforce arbitral awards and rejecting both parties’ applications for leave to appeal the Court’s 15 April 2016 judgment.
On 20 December 2018, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) published updated guidance on the conduct of arbitration under its arbitration rules. The Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (Note) entered into force on 1 January 2019, and represents a continuation of the ICC’s efforts to increase transparency and efficiency, and widen its range of services to users. We consider six of the most significant updates to the Note below.
The Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC) has released a new set of judicial interpretations concerning interim injunction applications for intellectual property rights (IP Rights)-related disputes. The Provisions on Application of Laws in Adjudication of Action Preservation Cases Involving Intellectual Property Disputes (Fa Shi [2018] No. 21) (Provisions) were published on 12 December 2018 and take effect on 1 January 2019. Prior to that, a consultation draft of the Provisions was released for public consultation on 26 February 2015.
The Provisions provide further guidance on interim injunctive relief (i.e. action preservation) applications made under Articles 100 and 101 of the Civil Procedure Law 2017 (2017 CPL) in cases concerning IP Rights and unfair competition, and clarify certain key concepts therein. (For more information on interim relief in the PRC, contact briana.young@hsf.com to request a copy of our guide “Interim Relief in Mainland China”.)
Some important articles in the Provisions, which are covered in this post, are:
As discussed in our recent blog post, the Moscow Arbitrazh Court and appeal courts recently found that a reference to the arbitration rules of an arbitral institution was not sufficiently clear evidence that the parties had agreed on that specific institution to administer the resolution of their disputes. The case related to the ICC standard arbitration clause and the ICC has applied to the Russian Supreme Court for clarity on its approach.
However, in the meantime, the ICC has issued an additional modified standard arbitration clause “to take account of the requirements of national laws and any other special requirements that the parties may have“. The ICC then proceeds to state that it is “prudent” for parties wishing to have an ICC Arbitration in Mainland China or in Russia “to include in their arbitration clause an explicit reference to the ICC International Court of Arbitration“.
The modified clause proposed by the ICC is as follows:
“All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be submitted to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce and shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules.â€
For further information, please contact Alexei Panich, partner, Nick Peacock, partner, Alexander Khretinin, senior associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.
Filed under Arbitration clauses, Asia, Europe, Institutions
The English High Court has in the last few days proposed a procedurally strict approach to serious irregularity challenges under s68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 where these have already been dismissed on paper. The decision in Midnight Marine Ltd v Thomas Miller Speciality Underwriting Agency Ltd [2018] EWHC 3431 (Comm) suggests that the court should take a more active role in preventing such hearings from escalating into a full s68 challenge hearing (case available here).
The High Court’s earlier decision in the case of Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria v Qatar National Bank [2018] EWHC 2218 (Comm) covered in our previous blog post, demonstrated the difficulty in disposing of bad s68 challenges quickly. This judgment emphasised that an oral hearing will usually be granted after a challenge is thrown out on paper, unless the case is “something akin to vexatious“. In this case, the summary dismissal of the s68 challenge was nevertheless followed by two further applications, and an oral hearing, before the challenge was finally thrown out.
Both of these recent cases promote the summary dismissal process in paragraph O8.5 of the Commercial Court Guide as a useful tool for weeding out unmeritorious s68 challenges, but the decisions differ on how to treat applications to set aside orders dismissing such challenges. The decision in Midnight Marine v Thomas Miller takes a tougher line than the earlier Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria v Qatar National Bank decision, suggesting that the oral hearing referred to in the summary dismissal process should be a very short hearing, directed only at the question of whether the application has a real prospect of success.
Filed under Arbitration Act 1996, Challenges to awards, Europe
The International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) has revised its Guide to Arbitration (the Guide). First published in 2013, after considerable stakeholder consultation, the Guide includes an explanatory memorandum which provides an overview of arbitration for parties to derivatives transactions, and includes a broad choice of model arbitration clauses (and guidance notes) for use with both the ISDA 1992 Master Agreement and the ISDA 2002 Master Agreement.  The model clauses can be included in new Master Agreements or can be included when amending an ISDA Master Agreement.
The new version of the Guide is best described as an enhancement, rather than a wholesale revision. It reflects developments in the field of arbitration since the Guide was first launched in 2013, such as the increasing availability of emergency arbitration, and the possibility of early dismissal of claims and defences.  The Guide also now features model arbitration clauses for various additional institutions, including the German Arbitration Institute (DIS) Rules clause to which Herbert Smith Freehills contributed (see here for further information).
As discussed below, arbitration offers a number of procedural features which may be attractive to parties to derivative transactions. Further, there are certain considerations relevant in derivatives disputes in particular which the parties may wish to bear in mind when including an arbitration clause in their contractual documents.
As the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) confirmed in a report on Financial Institutions and International Arbitration, arbitration has been steadily growing as a chosen method of dispute resolution in derivatives contracts, particularly as the participants entering the market of traded derivatives become more diverse (see here for further information).  ISDA’s continued support for arbitration is likely to encourage parties in the derivatives market to consider arbitration for their transactions and to facilitate the inclusion of workable arbitration clauses in ISDA Master Agreements and related contracts.
Filed under Institutions, News, Publications and Guides
Overview
The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA) has issued an announcement that it is (i) amending its two current sets of arbitration rules and (ii) introducing a revolutionary set of rules designed to provide efficient and cheap civil-law style arbitration.
In its introduction to an initial call for public comments on the drafts, the JCAA made the frank admission that it: “has yet to play a significant role in the resolution of international disputes.” The clear motivation for these new rules is to change this by offering a unique arbitration model that is attractive to a wide range of businesses. Accordingly, the new sets of rules (the key features of which are explored below) seem to create a three tiered-system:
The new sets of rules will come into force on 1 January 2019.
Filed under Arbitration rules, Asia, Japan, Uncategorized
