The Court’s ruling supports the general principle that costs follow the event. By Oliver E. Browne and Robert Price In Andrew Martin, Nicholas Greene, Coban 2017 LLP (formerly named Strutt & Parker LLP) v. Michael Harris [2019] EWHC 2735 (Ch), the English High Court held that any arbitration award as to costs stood or fell … Continue Reading
By Robert Price and Eleanor Scogings Two recent English court decisions provide useful reminders that parties to arbitration agreements must take care to properly serve arbitration proceedings on the other party. In doing so, parties will avoid the risk of the court setting aside an award on the grounds that service was defective and that the … Continue Reading
By Daniel Harrison The High Court recently held that a party was not free to disclose an arbitral award even though that award had already entered the public domain. Notably, the ruling may have significant implications for parties considering whether or not to resolve disputes through arbitration. Background: UMS Holdings Limited v Great Station Properties … Continue Reading
By Oliver Browne, Daniel Harrison, and Eleanor Scogings The English High Court recently dismissed a challenge to an arbitral award, holding that the tribunal’s alleged failure to take account of evidence did not amount to a serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act).[i] The Challenge Under Section 68 (Serious Irregularity) … Continue Reading
By Charles Rae A High Court decision has reiterated the difficulties international parties face in enforcing in England awards set aside by courts at the seat of arbitration. In Maximov v OJSC Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat[1] the Claimant had applied for enforcement of an award made by the International Commercial Arbitration Court of the Chamber of … Continue Reading
By Catriona E. Paterson In its recent decision in L R Avionics Technologies Limited v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria & Attorney General of the Federation of Nigeria[1], the Commercial Court found that that premises owned by Nigeria were not “in use […] for commercial purposes” within the meaning of section 13(4) of the State Immunity … Continue Reading
