Upcoming Webinars

Herbert Smith Freehills’ global arbitration practice continues its webinar series in July with two live audio seminars delivered to your desktop.

  • What value your BIT protection now? – withdrawals, annulments and refusal to enforce, 4 July 2013

This is the second in our current series focusing on Bilateral Investment Treaties and following on from our successful introductory seminar ‘A Beginner’s Guide to BITs: What are they and why do you need them?’ in April.

In this webinar, we will consider what the impact of the backlash against investment arbitration has been and how it will affect investors in the years to come. What does it mean for the Bilateral Investment Treaty protection that many have come to rely on when structuring an investment or venturing into a new market?

  • Enforcing arbitration awards on the fringes of EMEA, 12 July 2013

The focus of this webinar will be on local advice in relation to enforcement in each of the regions encompassed within EMEA, namely Europe, the Middle East and Africa, using the experience and insight of our partners who cover these regions.

For more information about each of these webinars and to register, please click on the link below.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Enforcement, Investment Arbitration, News

UK Supreme Court confirms power to issue an anti-suit injunction even when no arbitration is underway or proposed

The Supreme Court has confirmed that the English court has jurisdiction to injunct the continuation or commencement of foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, even in the absence of an actual, proposed or intended arbitration (Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC (Appellant) v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP (Respondent) [2013] UKSC 35). Following the now famous West Tankers¹ decision, it should be noted that this power only applies against jurisdictions which fall outside the Brussels Regulation and Lugano Convention (ostensibly, non-EU countries). Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration clauses, Europe

Why IOCs are paying attention to soft law on human rights

Given the increasing importance that multinational corporations attach to human rights obligations, we have published an article entitled ‘Why IOCs are paying attention to soft law on human rights’ in the Herbert Smith Freehills journal, Energy Exchange. Please click here to view the article. It focuses on the oil and gas sector and the soft law obligations which apply to International Oil Companies and the increasing social, political and contractual pressure to observe international standards of best practice, including in relation to human rights. It explains how infringements of soft law often have hard consequences. The article is authored by Stephanie Lomax, an associate in our energy department.

For more information about business and human rights more generally, please see the resources under the Public International Law tab on this blog and contact Matthew Weiniger, Stéfane Brabant, Andrew Cannon or Johanna Hull.

Matthew Weiniger
Matthew Weiniger
Partner
Email | Profile
+44 20 7466 2364
Stéphane Brabant
Stéphane Brabant
Partner
Email | Profile
+33 1 53 57 78 32
Andrew Cannon
Andrew Cannon
Senior Associate
Email
+44 20 7466 2852
Johanna Hull
Johanna Hull
Associate
Email
+44 20 7466 2986

Leave a Comment

Filed under International Human Rights

High Court confirms unilateral jurisdiction clause is valid under English Law

In the recent case of Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd v Hestia Holdings Ltd and Another [2013] EWHC 1328 (Comm), the English Commercial Court confirmed that one-way or unilateral jurisdiction clauses (in which one party can bring proceedings in one jurisdiction only, whilst the other has the option to bring proceedings in other jurisdictions) are valid under English law. In so doing, the Commercial Court has not followed the approach of the French Cour de cassation in Mme X v Bank Privée Edmond de Rothschild (the “Mme X Case“), in which a one-way jurisdiction clause was found to violate Article 23 of the Brussels Regulation because of its potestative nature (a potestative condition being one whose satisfaction is completely within the power of one of the parties, with no mutuality of obligation). The treatment of unilateral jurisdiction and arbitration clauses was discussed in our previous post.

The Mme X Case caused concern amongst many commercial parties, in particular financial institutions which favour such clauses. Whilst such unilateral jurisdiction clauses may not be upheld in all jurisdictions, it is some comfort that, in a robust judgment, the Commercial Court upheld the jurisdiction clause and, obiter, concluded that even more one-sided clauses than the one before it would not violate the public policy of equal access to justice enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

To read the full post on our Litigation blog, please click here.

For further information, please contact Nick Peacock, Partner, Hannah Ambrose, Professional Support Lawyer or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Nicholas Peacock
Nicholas Peacock
Partner
Email | Profile
+44 20 7466 2803
Hannah Ambrose
Hannah Ambrose
Professional Support Lawyer
Email
+44 20 7466 7585

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration clauses, Europe

Herbert Smith Freehills announces its inaugural International Arbitration Internship Programme in Asia

Herbert Smith Freehills has announced its new Asia International Arbitration Internship Programme. The programme, sponsored by arbitration partners Alastair Henderson and Justin D’Agostino, is aimed at both civil law and common law graduate and post-graduate students with a qualification in law, who want short-term experience in a leading international arbitration practice.

The scheme offers successful candidates an opportunity to experience international arbitration in practice. Interns will gain a first-hand understanding of both the legal and commercial aspects of this practice, and may be involved in a variety of projects such as assisting with current arbitration matters, conducting research, writing papers and journal articles, and producing internal know-how. This is a unique opportunity to be coached by leading international arbitration lawyers, for some of the world’s largest organisations, in one of the major arbitration centres of the region.

Alastair commented: “Hong Kong and Singapore are global arbitration centres and important hubs for the firm’s international arbitration practice. We are keen to give young people who aspire to a career in arbitration a short-term opportunity to join our teams and to gain their first exposure to the legal and commercial aspects of arbitration in daily practice. We hope that in due course we will extend the scheme to other regional offices such as Japan and Australia.”

Justin added: “This is an exciting programme for the practice, the firm and the wider arbitration community. We hope that this will encourage the Asia arbitration stars of the future, for the benefit of all engaged in arbitration in and beyond this region.”

The Asia internship programme complements Herbert Smith Freehills’ existing London International Arbitration Internship Programme. Launched in September 2010, the London internship programme has attracted civil law and common law qualified interns from, amongst others, the United States, Italy, and Spain, and has benefited the practice enormously.

For further information and details about how to apply for the programme, please refer to your preferred location:

Alastair Henderson
Alastair Henderson
Partner
Email | Profile
+65 6 868 8000
Justin D'Agostino
Justin D'Agostino
Partner, head of Greater China international arbitration
Email | Profile
+852 2101 4010

Leave a Comment

Filed under Asia, News

The 2013 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules Released

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC“) has published the 2013 revisions to the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules (“2013 HKIAC Rules“). Justin D’Agostino and Briana Young of Herbert Smith Freehills in Hong Kong have been on the HKIAC Rules Revision Committee and involved in the revision process from beginning to end. The new 2013 HKIAC Rules will come into force on 1 November 2013.

After a major review of its Administered Arbitration Rules, the HKIAC has introduced significant changes aimed at creating greater efficiency and bringing the HKIAC to the forefront of modern arbitral practice. Many of the changes clarify, but do not modify, the substance of HKIAC administered arbitration. Some of the key changes in the 2013 HKIAC Rules include:

  • Improved provision for joinder by expanding the Tribunal’s ability to join additional parties to an arbitration upon the request of one of the existing parties and also allowing third parties to submit requests to join an arbitration. In both cases the additional parties must be bound by a valid arbitration agreement under the 2013 HKIAC Rules giving rise to the arbitration. The HKIAC also obtains a prima facie power to join an additional party if a request for joinder is submitted prior to the Tribunal’s constitution. Under the current Administered Arbitration Rules, there is a limited joinder provision, where the Tribunal could join an additional party to an arbitration only with the consent of both parties.
  • New provisions to allow the HKIAC, in certain circumstances, to consolidate two or more arbitrations at a party’s request or to allow claims arising out of or in relation to multiple contracts to be raised in a single proceeding. Under the current Administered Arbitration Rules, there is no express provision on consolidation.
  • New provisions on emergency arbitrators.
  • An arbitrator’s agreed hourly rate shall not exceed a fee cap (HKD 6,500 per hour) established in the Rules, subject to a contrary agreement by the parties.

By building upon the success of the current Administered Arbitration Rules, the 2013 revisions ensure that they continue to be modern and reflective of best practice in international arbitration, in keeping with HKIAC’s status as one of the world’s pre-eminent arbitration institutions. Along with the continued support of parties and professionals, the 2013 HKIAC Rules should also ensure that arbitration in Hong Kong continues to thrive.

A copy of the 2013 HKIAC Rules are now available on the HKIAC’s website (click here for a copy).

Herbert Smith Freehills is also hosting a breakfast briefing in Hong Kong on the 2013 HKIAC Rules on Thursday, 3rd October 2013 (click here for an invitation).

Justin D'Agostino
Justin D'Agostino
Partner, head of Greater China international arbitration
Email | Profile
+852 2101 4010
Briana Young
Briana Young
Registered Foreign Lawyer, Professional Support Lawyer
Email
+852 2101 4214

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration rules, Asia, Hong Kong & China

Our new Asia Disputes blog

We have today launched Herbert Smith Freehills’ new Asia disputes blog, Asia Disputes Notes, where you will find the latest updates on disputes related topics from across the Asian jurisdictions in which we operate (Hong Kong and Greater China, Southeast Asia, Japan and Korea). The posts will cover developments relating to litigation, as well as alternative dispute resolution, investigations and compliance, and international arbitration.

Asia-related arbitration and public international law updates will still be included on this Arbitration Notes Blog. 

As for our other blogs, content on the site can be accessed in various ways, including by jurisdiction, by category, by ‘tag’ for specific developments and sub-topics, or by key-word searching. You can subscribe to the blog to receive notifications by e-mail when items are posted, or you can visit the site whenever you choose at  www.hsf-asiadisputesnotes.com or via the link under “Our blogs” in the top menu.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ADR, Asia, East Asia, Hong Kong & China, News, South East Asia

International Bar Association releases the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration

The International Bar Association Council, at its session of May 25, 2013, has approved the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration (the “Guidelines“). The Guidelines provide a framework for parties and their representatives to identify appropriate conduct and behaviour within the context of international arbitral proceedings.

A number of high profile commentators¹ have highlighted the potential for conflicting national rules and norms to undermine the fairness and integrity of international arbitration and called for more certainty and clarity in this area: in particular, for arbitral tribunals to be given the power to sanction counsel misconduct. The Guidelines have been formulated by a group of expert practitioners and offer a welcome and robust solution. However, the IBA is not alone in seeking to answer the call for regulation in this area. It is anticipated that the LCIA will present an alternative approach by requiring counsel to abide by certain ethical standards in order to participate in an LCIA arbitration.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Arbitration rules

Court allows a security for costs application against recalcitrant Respondent seeking to challenge arbitral award, but refuses to require payment in of value of Award

In the case of X v Y Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), 07 May 2013 the court has grappled with the options available to a claimant against a respondent seeking to challenge an award. In this case, the Respondent, X, had taken every step possible to avoid payment of damages and costs awarded against them in previous awards by an English seated arbitral tribunal. X now sought to challenge a fourth award in the English courts under s67 and s68 of the Arbitration Act (the Act). Y asked the court for: (i) security for its costs in resisting such applications; and (ii) for payment into court of the sums awarded to it under the fourth award.

Clearly sympathising with Y’s plight, the court ordered that security for costs should be granted given the illiquidity of assets against which costs could be enforced and the absence of any assurance by X that costs would be paid. However, payment into court was found to be a step too far. It was not for the court to require payment into court to assist one party to enforce an award. In this case, whilst the s67 and s68 challenges might delay enforcement, Y had a freezing injunction in place over assets in Australia which should enable it to enforce the awards eventually.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Challenges to awards, Europe

English court reaffirms its jurisdiction and willingness to compel foreign defendants to disclose their assets worldwide in aid of execution of arbitration awards

In a judgment handed down on 23 May 2013 in Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v (1) Unitech Limited; (2) Burley Holdings Limited; and (3) Arsanovia Limited, the English High Court reaffirmed its jurisdiction under section 37(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (the 1981 Act) to make an order to compel the Defendants to provide disclosure of all their assets worldwide. In doing so, the English court has once again demonstrated its commitment to the policy that arbitration awards should be enforced.

Continue reading

Leave a Comment

Filed under Awards, Enforcement, Europe