We are delighted to share with you the latest issue of the publication from the Herbert Smith Freehills Global Arbitration Practice, Inside Arbitration.
In addition to sharing knowledge and insight about the markets and industries in which our clients operate, the publication offers personal perspectives of our international arbitration partners from across the globe.
In August last year, we reported that a new Indonesian arbitral institution had been established in mid-2016 under the name of Renewed BANI or BANI Pembaharuan (“BANI-P“), notwithstanding the continued existence of the separate institution already known as BANI. We reported that the two institutions were in dispute as to which of them could legitimately claim the right to refer to itself as BANI, and we explained that although this might at first appear to be of purely local interest, the confusion has real and serious implications for contracts that provide for arbitration under BANI rules (as many now do).
BANI-P brought the matter to the South Jakarta District Court. In August 2017 BANI-P prevailed in obtaining an order declaring it to be the rightful institution to be referred to as BANI. Meanwhile, however, the original BANI had succeeded in separate proceedings in the Jakarta State Administrative Court, obtaining a ruling nullifying the decision of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to acknowledge and register BANI-P as an arbitral institution. BANI had also obtained a ruling from the Commercial Court confirming it as the rightful owner of the trademark name “BANI”.
Both BANI-P and BANI appealed against the decisions of the South Jakarta District Court and the Jakarta State Administrative Court. However, BANI-P has apparently elected not to appeal against the decision of the Commercial Court.
Recently, the State Administrative High Court issued a decision in favour of BANI-P and reversed the decision of the lower Administrative Court. However, the Administrative High Court made this ruling on a technical ground: it found that the administrative courts do not have jurisdiction on the matter which is effectively a civil dispute. The Administrative High Court observed that its conclusion is strengthened by the fact that there are already ongoing proceedings in the South Jakarta District Court and the Commercial Court dealing with the issue of which entity has the right to use the name of, and be recognised as, BANI.
This decision is a blow to BANI as it is now faced with two decisions that are not in its favour. Continue reading
We are delighted to share with you the latest issue of the publication from Herbert Smith Freehills' Global Arbitration Practice, Inside Arbitration.
In addition to sharing knowledge and insights about the markets and industries in which our clients operate, the publication offers personal perspectives of our international arbitration partners from across the globe.
In this issue:
- Paula Hodges QC, Peter Leon, Craig Tevendale and Chris Parker share their insights into the development of commercial arbitration on the African continent and consider dispute resolution choices for parties negotiating Africa-related contracts.
- We consider the development of arbitration in Rwanda and the Kigali International Arbitration Centre "in conversation" with KIAC's secretary general, Dr Fidèle Masengo.
- Peter Godwin, Regional Head of Disputes Asia, reflects on his 16 years in Asia and the changes in attitudes towards dispute resolution amongst Japanese parties.
- Dr Patricia Nacimiento, Thomas Weimann and Dr Mathias Wittinghofer give their view on whether Germany is on its way to becoming a true arbitration powerhouse.
- Chris Parker, Elaine Wong, Gitta Satryani and Elizabeth Kantor provide a global perspective on the availability of security for costs and claim in international arbitration.
- Dr Larry Shore discusses his path into public international law and the development of his interest in treaty disputes, as well as the differences in arbitration practice in the US and the UK and trends in US arbitration.
- We highlight a number of key considerations for parties negotiating contracts with state and state-owned entities across the globe and provide comparative into state immunity in five key jurisdictions.
We are pleased to present our clients with an infographic providing a snapshot of our global arbitration practice in the two years 2014-2016.
The infographic details the successes of our growing practice and our huge geographical reach. The infographic is available at this link and at page 25 of Inside Arbitration.
The full digital edition can be downloaded in PDF by clicking on this link.
We hope that you enjoy reading Issue #3 of Inside Arbitration. We would welcome your feedback.
On 10 January 2017 the Singapore Parliament passed amendments to the Civil Law Act legalising third-party funding in arbitration and related proceedings in Singapore (the "Amendments"). Following a year of positive developments for arbitration in Singapore, this latest development will open up a significant new market for funders worldwide, further asserts Singapore's eminence as an arbitral centre and paves the way for further and deeper reform.
We previously reported on the introduction of the Civil Law (Amendment) Bill in our blog posts of July 2016 and November 2016. The key features of the Bill were to:
- abolish the common law torts of champerty and maintenance (which currently restrict the use of third party funding);
- confirm that third party funding is not contrary to public policy or illegal, if used by eligible parties in prescribed categories;
- confirm that the prescribed categories of proceedings in which third party funding can be used include international arbitration proceedings and court litigation and mediation arising out of international arbitration; and
- prescribe the qualifications that a third party funder must satisfy in order to fund an arbitration, including a proviso that the funding of dispute resolution proceedings must be the "principal business" of the third party funder.
While the legislation makes the broad legal amendments necessary to facilitate third-party funding, the finer details – such as the precise scope of the permitted arrangements and accompanying regulatory changes – will be dealt with by subsidiary legislation and regulations by the Minister of Law.
Interestingly, early reports of Ministers' comments on the legislation, indicate that the Amendments – currently limited to international arbitration and related proceedings – are very much a first step toward broader reform. Singapore's Senior Minister of State for Law, Ms Indranee Rajah, reportedly stated that "We want to have [third-party funding] tested in a limited sphere … If the framework works well, as and when appropriate, the prescribed categories of proceedings may be expanded". This will be of significant interest to funders and practitioners alike, as it clearly positions Singapore as a growth market.