Jasbir Dhillon QC: Freezing injunctions and receivership in support of arbitration

Jasbir Dhillon QC: Freezing injunctions and receivership in support of arbitration

Jasbir Dhillon QC

Brick Court Chambers

A frequently encountered problem for any claimant in international arbitration arises where the respondent seeks to make enforcement of any arbitral award against their assets difficult or impossible. In this article, I describe two forms of injunction available from the English court that provide an effective remedy for this widespread problem.

Continue reading “Jasbir Dhillon QC: Freezing injunctions and receivership in support of arbitration”

Mishcon de Reya: The dangers of repeat appointments

Mishcon de Reya: The dangers of repeat appointments

Karel Daele

Partner, Mishcon de Reya

karel.daele@mishcon.com

The issue of repeat appointments has been news in International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) cases in recent times, but what’s the concern? The independence of the arbitrator is one of the cornerstones of arbitration. An independent arbitrator is one who has no close relationship with a party in the arbitration or its counsel, be it of a financial, professional or personal nature. It is crucial that an arbitrator has no such relationships because they might induce the arbitrator to decide in favour of one of the parties, irrespective of the merits of the case.

Continue reading “Mishcon de Reya: The dangers of repeat appointments”

Travers Smith: CPR 36: time for a re-boot?

Travers Smith: CPR 36: time for a re-boot?

Jan-Jaap Baer

Partner, Travers Smith

Emma Reynolds

Associate, Travers Smith

In April this year, CPR 36 underwent the latest in a series of amendments. These amendments did not amount to a root-and-branch overhaul of the regime but rather to a reorganisation and codification of existing principles, largely designed to address issues which have been thrown up by recent court decisions. The changes were generally welcomed as providing a greater degree of clarity for litigants when navigating their way through what remain complex and densely drafted rules. However, there remains a question as to whether a more radical overhaul of the rules is desirable.

Continue reading “Travers Smith: CPR 36: time for a re-boot?”

Signature Litigation: Policing arbitration – can accountability deficit be addressed?

Signature Litigation: Policing arbitration – can accountability deficit be addressed?

Natalia Chumak

Partner, Signature Litigation

natalia.chumak@signaturelitigation.com

Nick Storrs

Senior associate, Signature Litigation

nick.storrs@signaturelitigation.com

Over recent decades, arbitration for dispute resolution has become increasingly popular. Commercial parties are becoming far more amenable to resolving their differences by private means rather than through national court systems, which can be more costly and time-intensive. There is, of course, nothing wrong in engaging in a private, consensual process and there are numerous advantages of doing so. But the framework within which such disputes are resolved must be unimpeachably robust in order to meet the objective in any dispute resolution process: to do justice between the parties in accordance with the law. Accordingly parties’ autonomous right to submit disputes to arbitration needs to be structured within a legislative framework which governs and regulates the arbitral process. This is in part to:

Continue reading “Signature Litigation: Policing arbitration – can accountability deficit be addressed?”

Signature Litigation: Legal privilege: far from resolved

Signature Litigation: Legal privilege: far from resolved

Abdulali Jiwaji

Partner, Signature Litigation

abdulali.jiwaji@signaturelitigation.com

Daniel Hayward-Hughes

Associate, Signature Litigation

daniel.hayward-hughes@signaturelitigation.com

The right of clients to preserve the confidentiality in advice provided by their lawyer is fundamental to English common law. Other common law jurisdictions such as Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Hong Kong have all gone one step further than England by entrenching legal advice privilege and protection from disclosure into statute. Legal advice privilege applies to confidential communications between a lawyer and client for the purpose of seeking or obtaining legal advice. Problems can arise though when it is unclear who the instructing client is and whether the lawyer is actually a ‘lawyer’ for the purposes of the common law test for privilege.

Continue reading “Signature Litigation: Legal privilege: far from resolved”

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan: Party-appointed arbitrators, impartiality and a perceived need for change

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan: Party-appointed arbitrators, impartiality and a perceived need for change

Anthony Sinclair

Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan

anthonysinclair@quinnemanuel.com

It is an old adage that the quality of any arbitration as a method of dispute resolution is only as good as the arbitrators themselves. The lack of substantial scrutiny over the arbitrators’ decision rests on the assumption that the parties wish to avoid any extensive review of the arbitral award by the courts at the seat of the arbitration (or indeed anywhere else).

Continue reading “Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan: Party-appointed arbitrators, impartiality and a perceived need for change”

Harneys: British Virgin Islands positioned to become an international arbitration centre

Harneys: British Virgin Islands positioned to become an international arbitration centre

Phillip Kite

Global head of litigation and insolvency, Harneys

phillip.kite@harneys.com

The British Virgin Islands’ (BVI) Arbitration Act 2013 came into force on 1 October 2014. It is a landmark piece of legislation which is expected to propel alternative dispute resolution in the BVI into high gear. The BVI is now well-positioned to become a leading jurisdiction for international arbitration. The Act incorporates these main features:

Continue reading “Harneys: British Virgin Islands positioned to become an international arbitration centre”

CMS: Crowdfunding litigation – power to the people?

CMS: Crowdfunding litigation – power to the people?

Tim Hardy

Partner, CMS

tim.hardy@cms-cmck.com

David Bridge

Senior associate, CMS

david.bridge@cms-cmck.com

When the people of France gave the Statue of Liberty to the US in 1886, they left it to the people of the US to fund the acquisition of a site and build the pedestal. Fundraising proved difficult until the publisher of the New York World started a campaign that attracted over 120,000 donations, most of which were less than a dollar.

Continue reading “CMS: Crowdfunding litigation – power to the people?”

Latham & Watkins: Masterminding a fraud claim – the English courts as a magnet forum?

Latham & Watkins: Masterminding a fraud claim – the English courts as a magnet forum?

Simon Bushell

London chair of litigation, Latham & Watkins

simon.bushell@lw.com

The world is an increasingly small place: money travels far and fast across seemingly invisible borders converting from cash into assets, back into cash, and then back into yet further assets at the click of a button.

Continue reading “Latham & Watkins: Masterminding a fraud claim – the English courts as a magnet forum?”

Legal privilege: the ripples flow on still from Three Rivers

Legal privilege: the ripples flow on still from Three Rivers

Colin Passmore assesses a key ruling in the increasingly contentious area of legal privilege.

In June this year, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal held that the English Court of Appeal decision in Three Rivers (No.5) [2003] does not represent Hong Kong law. This is, of course, the 2003 English Court of Appeal decision well-known for the challenges it presents companies who wish consultations with their legal advisers to benefit from the protection of legal advice privilege.

Continue reading “Legal privilege: the ripples flow on still from Three Rivers”