In December 2017, South Africa brought into law its first piece of legislation dedicated to international arbitration, the aptly named International Arbitration Act of 2017 (the New Act).
The New Act
The New Act incorporates the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law and further aligns the country’s national law with the New York Convention. The legislation has been welcomed as a necessary step for South Africa to become the continent’s leading arbitral hub. Rather interestingly, in an effort to stimulate the growth of ADR, parties can also now choose to refer their disputes to conciliation using the UNCITRAL Conciliation Rules.
But the New Act does not stop at mere adoption of the UNCITRAL texts and modernisation of the old regime. Ambitious refinements to the Model Law (which is incorporated as Schedule 1 to the New Act), seek to advance certain matters into what many may regard as relatively unchartered waters. One such ambitious development relates to court ordered interim measures.
The Singapore International Arbitration Centre (the SIAC) introduced emergency arbitrator provisions in its arbitration rules in July 2010 and has had 34 applications filed before it to date where parties have asked for an emergency arbitrator to be appointed. The SIAC further reports that 9 out of the 34 emergency arbitrator applications have involved Indian parties (5 where the Indian party was the respondent and 4 where Indian parties were both the claimant and the respondent).
An emergency arbitrator is typically approached by parties where the Tribunal has not been constituted and a party may require urgent interim relief including, amongst others, orders for preservation of properties, freezing accounts, orders against the dissipation of assets etc. Seeking relief from an emergency arbitrator is increasingly been chosen as an alternative to seeking injunctive relief from the courts (in support of the arbitration). According to statistics released by the SIAC, the average time taken by an emergency arbitrator to pass an award after having heard the parties ranges from 8-10 days, with the shortest period being 2 days to pass an award.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has handed down its decision in respect of provisional measures sought by East Timor in a pending case before the Court. The principal claim relates to documents and data seized by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) from the office of an Australian lawyer representing East Timor in an upcoming arbitration with Australia.¹
At least some of the materials seized relate to a pending arbitration between East Timor and Australia concerning allegations by East Timor that Australia engaged in spying during negotiations to sign the 2006 Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea (CMATS). In that arbitration, East Timor contends that Australian espionage invalidates CMATS, a $40 billion gas and oil treaty, as the treaty was not negotiated in good faith.
The Court has ordered that Australia:
- ensure that the content of the seized material is not used to the disadvantage of East Timor before the principal claim is determined;
- keep the seized materials and any copies thereof under seal; and
- not interfere in any way in communications between East Timor and its legal advisors in relation to the CMATS arbitration.
However, the Court did not order that Australia deliver the seized materials into the custody of the ICJ or deliver to East Timor and the ICJ a list of the materials seized in the raid that have been disclosed to any person and a list of those to whom the materials had been disclosed, as requested in East Timor’s request for provisional measures.
The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA) has introduced an amended version of its Commercial Arbitration Rules (the New Rules). The New Rules, which contain comprehensive amendments, came into force on 1 February 2014, following a consultation period. They will apply to all arbitrations initiated on or after that date. The changes are intended by the JCAA to update the rules in line with recent trends in the amendment of arbitration rules (such as the 2010 Amendments to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules). The changes largely achieve this aim, addressing current issues in international arbitration such as multi-party arbitration, emergency arbitrators and interim relief.
Wednesday 22nd January 2014, 12.30pm – 1.30pm UK time
This webinar, chaired by partner, Matthew Weiniger,will focus on the global arbitration highlights of 2013 and look ahead to the key milestones and events of 2014.
The Singapore Court of Appeal has set aside an interim injunction granted by the High Court against a Maldivian state-owned corporation (“MACL“), by which MACL had been restrained from interfering with the operation of the Maldives airport by the relevant concession holder (“GMIAL“), a joint venture entity partly owned by the India-based infrastructure group, GMR. (A copy of the decision can be found here).
In deciding the injunction application, the Court of Appeal had to consider the question of whether it had the power to grant an injunction – in light of the fact that MACL was a state-owned corporation; and whether the circumstances of the case justified grant of an injunction.
The Court of Appeal rejected MACL’s claim to state immunity and found that it had jurisdiction to grant an injunction. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal laid particular emphasis on the fact that MACL had waived any right it may have had to sovereign immunity and that in any event the transaction with GMIAL was purely contractual and commercial in nature and therefore no sovereign immunity was available.
However, in the exercise of its discretion, it found that GMIAL had not demonstrated that the balance of convenience lay in favour of an injunction. The substantive dispute was referred to arbitration.
The decision has been met with some disappointment inside India by those who see it as lessening Singapore’s attraction as an arbitral seat. This appears to be an unfair reading. The ultimate decision of the Singapore Court of Appeal involved a balancing of the competing interests of the parties, coupled with recognition of the limits of the court’s powers in purporting to restrain actions in a foreign jurisdiction. The Court also concluded that it would be possible, albeit not easy, for expert evidence to be used to assess the monetary value of any harm caused to GMIAL; in other words, monetary damages would be an adequate remedy if GMIAL succeeded on its arbitration claim.
In the recent case of U&M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines plc  EWHC 260 (Comm), the court examined the question of whether English courts have exclusive jurisdiction to grant interim measures in support of an arbitration seated in England pending the appointment of the tribunal. Although it did not have to decide the point, the court found that, whilst English courts would have primary jurisdiction to hear applications in support of arbitral proceedings, parties may nevertheless seek interim relief or conservatory measures from other national courts where, for practical reasons, the application can only sensibly be made there.
Pending the formation of the arbitral tribunal, parties to an English-seated arbitration may wish to consider whether they may be able to get more effective interim relief in courts other than those of the seat.