Herbert Smith Freehills has issued the latest edition of its Indian international arbitration e-bulletin. In this issue we will consider Indian court decisions, including the arbitrability of allegations of fraud and non-arbitrability of trust disputes by the Supreme Court. We have also considered various decisions in which the Delhi High court shows restraint in relation to interfering with offshore arbitrations, while also making decisions that demonstrate the observance of formalities by the court which could be construed as not pro-arbitration, including refusing to enforce an arbitration clause in an unsigned agreement. In other news, we consider the rise of institutional arbitration in India and India-related bilateral investment treaty news. Further, we discuss the imminent launch of a new edition of our Guide on India-Related Contracts Dispute Resolution.
In the recent case of HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai (FACC 8/2013), the Court of Final Appeal (the CFA) offered, for the first time, authoritative guidance on the mental element of “having reasonable grounds to believe” under section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) (the OSCO).
Section 25(1) makes it an offence for anyone to deal with any property while “knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe” that such property in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence. The CFA’s judgment in effect overturns previous Court of Appeal (the CA) jurisprudence and offered much-welcomed clarity on the subject.
Herbert Smith Freehills has issued the latest edition of its Indian international arbitration e-bulletin. This issue considers some significant decisions of the Indian courts, including two decisions on the arbitrability of fraud claims and a decision of the Supreme Court concerning the power of Indian courts to intervene in foreign-seated arbitrations.
The e-bulletin also reports on some interesting news stories on India-related arbitration claims, including the ongoing GMR-Maldives dispute and a decision on the termination of an arbitral tribunal’s mandate.
Some, if not quite born trustees, are appointed as such at the outset of a trust. Some achieve trusteeship at some later stage. And some have some aspects of trusteeship thrust upon them.
Within this third category are strangers to a trust who “dishonestly assist” an express trustee in a breach of the trustee’s fiduciary duty. Through this dishonest assistance, the stranger will be liable to the injured beneficiary, even though no fiduciary relationship exists between them. Although not sued as fiduciaries, such strangers can be held liable to account in equity as if they were a trustee of the beneficiary. Commonly, for convenience (which more often leads to confusion), the stranger is called a “constructive trustee”.
Previously, there was some uncertainty as to the scope of the remedies available for dishonest assistance: specifically, whether the claimant-beneficiary could obtain an account of profits against the dishonest assister, even though no loss was suffered. The unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal in Novoship (UK) Limited & ors v Nikitin & ors  EWCA Civ 908 confirms the availability of the remedy in claims against third parties for dishonest assistance and also the circumstances in which the remedy will be available, namely where there is a sufficient causal connection between the dishonest assistance and the profit and where it would be not be disproportionate to grant the remedy. Robert Hunter and Tom Wood consider the decision here.
In the recent case of Moulin Global Eyecare Trading Limited (in liquidation) v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue FACV 5/2013, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal provided welcome clarification on whether the fraudulent knowledge of directors can be attributed to a company. Continue reading
Herbert Smith Freehills has issued its latest Indian International Arbitration e-bulletin. The e-bulletin considers some significant decisions of the Indian courts, including on the arbitrability of fraud claims and on the proper forum for deciding the scope of an arbitration agreement. We also provide an update on the Indian investment treaty arbitration landscape.
Herbert Smith Freehills will be hosting a breakfast briefing in its Hong Kong office on 27 February 2014 to discuss these recent developments in Indian arbitration. If you are interested in attending, please click here or contact Briana Young.