Tag Archives: Hannah Ambrose
Award dismissing a claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay survives challenge in the English court
In Grindrod Shipping Pte Ltd v Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd, the English High Court (“the Court“) rejected an application under s68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“the Act“) to challenge an Award (the “Award“). Six years after the proceedings … Continue reading
ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS DISCLOSURE OF ARBITRAL APPOINTMENTS IN RELATED OR OVERLAPPING REFERENCES
In Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2018] 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 … Continue reading
Filed under Arbitrators, Procedures in arbitration
Progress towards a Multilateral Investment Court? EU-momentum building and divisions in UNCITRAL Working Group III
In the past few years, discontent about Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS, a recognised shorthand for ad hoc arbitration of investor-state disputes) has been fomenting in various parts of the world but nowhere more so than within the EU. The European … Continue reading
Upheaval and uncertainty in mineral regulation in parts of Africa: resurgence of resource nationalism highlights the importance of investment treaty protections
The last few months have seen significant changes to mining regulations in various African states, giving rise to a concern that a regional trend of resource nationalism may be (re-)emerging. In this context it is important for companies associated with … Continue reading
Filed under Africa, Investment Arbitration, ISDS, Public International Law
Podcast: How Arbitration and ADR can be used together
In this short podcast Professional Support Consultants Hannah Ambrose and Vanessa Naish look at how Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (or “ADR”) can work together. The podcast considers how parties can agree to an ADR process in addition to, or … Continue reading
Filed under ADR, Arbitration proceedings, Podcast
Update on the future of ISDS: the discussions within UNCITRAL Working Group III – no apparent consensus to date
After a number of years of public debate in a variety of fora, the discussion of the future development of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) has recently moved to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). UNCITRAL Working Group … Continue reading
Filed under Costs, Investment Arbitration, ISDS, Third Party Funding
EU Council publishes Negotiating Directives for Convention establishing a Multilateral Investment Court: no real surprises but a couple of gaps
On 20 March, 2018 the Council of the European Union published negotiating directives dated 1 March 2018 authorizing the European Commission to negotiate a convention establishing a multilateral court for the settlement of investment disputes between investors and states. Whilst … Continue reading
Filed under EU, Europe, Investment Arbitration, ISDS
English Court holds that the time limit for appeal of an award runs from the date of the award, unless there is a “material” correction to the award
In a decision dated 16 March 2018, the English Commercial Court (the “Court“) dismissed the application of appeal under s69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act“) by Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Company Limited (“DSME“) on the ground … Continue reading
Filed under Arbitration Act 1996, Arbitration laws, Awards, Challenges to awards, Europe
Security for costs granted by English Court in investment treaty award challenge in which claimants are receiving third-party funding
In its recent judgment in Progas Energy Limited and ors v Pakistan [2018], the English High Court (the Court) granted Pakistan’s request for security for their costs in defending a challenge to an investment treaty award. The Court declined Pakistan’s … Continue reading
Filed under Asia, Challenges to awards, Costs, Europe, Investment Arbitration, Third Party Funding
State-to-State dispute settlement under the EU’s draft Withdrawal Agreement: CJEU jurisdiction not arbitration
We have known for some time now that the UK and EU have very different views regarding the state-to-state dispute resolution mechanism to be contained in the Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK. The EU has never made … Continue reading
Filed under Brexit, EU, Europe, Public International Law