8
HIGHLIGHTS OF 2012 GLOBAL ARBITRATION
HIGHLIGHTS OF 2012
GLOBAL ARBITRATION
03GLOBAL ARBITRATION: hIGhLIGhTs Of 2012
GLOBAL ARBITRATION: hIGhLIGhTs Of 2012
CHanGeS TO THe ruLeS OF THe key arbITraL InSTITuTIOnS
ICC – new rules (in force from 1 January 2012) focus on how to accommodate multi-party/multi-contract disputes. New opt-out emergency arbitrator provisions and new cost incentives for parties and tribunals to run proceedings expeditiously.
Switzerland – new rules (in force from 1 June 2012) follow the general trend amongst the arbitral institutions to seek to promote greater time and cost efficiency in proceedings.
CIETAC – new rules (in force from 1 May 2012) address the increasing complexity of arbitration, provide greater autonomy and codify and clarify CIETAC’s existing practice.
Split at CIETAC - CIETAC Beijing revoked the authorisation of its Shanghai and South China sub-commissions to accept and administer arbitrations (although those sub-commissions continue to accept and manage cases submitted to them in their own name).
KLRCA (Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration) published new i-Arbitration Rules - a new option for Islamic finance parties.
Launch of PRIME Finance. Based on a tailored version of UNICITRAL Rules.
LOOkInG FOrward TO 2013 - key evenTS TO LOOk OuT FOr
LCIA Rules revision – changes expected on multi-party/multi-contract provisions.
Brussels Regulation reform – the Council of the EU vote on the proposal to reform the Brussels Regulation and effectively reverse the effect of the West Tankers.
Arbitration centre to be set up in London to settle disputes arising out of Saudi Arabia?
EU investment arbitration policy reform: the Commission’s draft regulation will have a second reading in the European Parliament. Establishes the terms under which individual member states are authorised to maintain in force, amend or conclude BITs with third countries.
Outcome of consultation on ISDA Market Agreements and production of ISDA Model Form Arbitration Agreement.
Outcome of reference to European Commission in Jivraj v Hashwani.
04
A ROuNd The wORLd TOuR Of key deveLOpmeNTsenGLand and waLeS
West Tankers v Allianz SpA and another - the case rumbles on. Since the ECJ ruling in 2009, anti-suit injunctions are no longer available within the EU but, in related proceedings:
High Court held that it can grant damages for breach of arbitration agreement or an indemnity against consequences of the breach; and
Court of Appeal held that declaratory award can be enforced as a judgment (in the face of an inconsistent judgment).
These provide comfort whilst we await a revision to the Brussels Regulation in 2013.
SulAmerica v Enesa Engenharia - Court of Appeal provides new test to ascertain which law applies to the separable arbitration agreement. But it is still clearer to stipulate this.
Gécamines v FG Hemisphere Associates - Privy Council considers liability of State-owned corporations for debts owed by the State. Creditors cannot enforce debts of State against an entity distinct from the State. Advisable to include State entities as parties to contract.
SerVaas Incorporated v Rafidain Bank - Supreme Court guidance on the scope of the “commercial purposes” exception from immunity of States from enforcement against their assets. Only current and intended use of the asset is relevant.
Jivraj v Hashwani not quite over - Supreme Court (in 2011) upheld the principle of party autonomy regarding choice of arbitrators and declared that arbitrators are not employees and not subject to anti-discrimination legislation. Decision referred to the European Commission for alleged breach of European law.
eurOpe
France
Ms X v Banque Privée Edmond de Rothschild - Cour de Cassation holds one-way exclusive jurisdiction clause providing for litigation void and unenforceable on the basis of lack of equality. Query impact on arbitration.
Germany
Eureko BV v Slovakia – Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt confirmed the protection of investors under the dispute resolution clauses in an intra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), despite the European Commission view that these treaties are in conflict with EU law.
Russia
Nikolay Maximov v JSC Novolipetsk Metallurgic Plant - Supreme Arbitrazh Court declared non-arbitrability of corporate disputes, impacting on transactions with shares in Russian companies.
Sony Ericsson v Russian Telephone Company - Supreme Arbitrazh Court invalidated unilateral options in dispute resolution clauses. Advisable to include ‘arbitration only’ provisions in Russia-related agreements.
amerICaS
USA
Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co - US Supreme Court heard arguments in this case, raising the question of how businesses can protect themselves against allegations of complicity in governmental human rights abuses in connection with their operations.
Re Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones v JAS Forwarding - Eleventh Circuit court held that a private commercial arbitral tribunal is a “foreign tribunal” for the purposes of §1782 discovery and ordered broad US discovery in support of the foreign-seated arbitration.
heRBeRT smITh fReehILLs
05
BG v Argentina - US federal appeals court for the DC circuit vacated $185 million UNCITRAL award against Argentina on the basis that BG should have complied with the 18 month local remedies period in the UK/Argentina BIT by bringing their claim to the Argentine courts before initiating arbitration.
South America
Denunciation of ICSID Convention by Venezuela (following previous denunciations by Bolivia and Ecuador).
aSIa-paCIFIC
India
Bharat Aluminium v Kaiser Aluminium - Supreme Court’s landmark decision overrules Bhatia International and paves the way for reduced court intervention in arbitration seated outside of India. But Indian courts no longer empowered to grant interim relief in relation to foreign arbitrations.
White Industries v India - UNCITRAL tribunal held that India breached a BIT obligation to provide investors with an “effective means of asserting claims and enforcing rights” through undue delay in the Indian court system. White had spent nine years attempting to enforce an ICC Award in India.
Notification by Indian government of China and Hong Kong as a territory to which the New York Convention applies.
Hong Kong
Pacific China Holdings v Grand Pacific Holdings - Hong Kong Court of Appeal awarded costs on an indemnity basis against a party that made an unsuccessful application to set aside an arbitral award.
Singapore
Astro Nusantara International BV and others v PT Ayunda Prima Mitra and others - Singapore High Court rejected attempts to resist the enforcement of
an award on the ground that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. Attempts were raised outside the time limits provided for by the Model Law.
Indonesia
Hesham al-Warraq v Indonesia - Singapore tribunal ruled that the state of Indonesia had a case to answer under the little known investment treaty of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
mIddLe eaST/aFrICa
Dubai
International Electromechanical Services v Al Fattan Engineering and Al Fattan Properties - DIFC court stayed court proceedings for a non-DIFC seated arbitration (Dubai seated in this case) even where it otherwise had jurisdiction to hear the case.
DIFC court issued a White Paper on enforcement of DIFC court and DIFC-LCIA arbitral awards in Dubai, in the other emirates in the UAE and overseas.
Dubai Court of Appeal upheld decision to enforce two LCIA arbitration awards with an English seat under the New York Convention.
South Africa
South Africa expressed intention to terminate its BIT with the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union and not to renew twelve other BITs with EU member states.
GLOBAL ARBITRATION: hIGhLIGhTs Of 2012
06
CONTACTs
heRBeRT smITh fReehILLs
Paula HodgesPartner, LondonT +44 20 7466 [email protected]
Charles KaplanPartner, ParisT +33 1 53 57 70 [email protected]
Peter GodwinPartner, TokyoT +81 3 5412 [email protected]
Maurice Burke Partner, SingaporeT +65 [email protected]
Emmanuelle CabrolPartner, ParisT +33 1 53 57 73 [email protected]
Justin D’AgostinoPartner, Hong KongT +852 2101 [email protected]
Clément DupoirierPartner, ParisT +33 1 53 57 78 [email protected]
Jessica FeiPartner, BeijingT +86 10 [email protected]
David GilmorePartner, TokyoT +81 3 5412 [email protected]
Alastair HendersonPartner, BangkokT +66 2 [email protected]
Brenda HorriganPartner, ShanghaiT +86 21 2322 [email protected]
Emma KratochvilovaPartner, TokyoT +81 3 5412 [email protected]
Christian LeathleyPartner, LondonT +44 20 7466 [email protected]
Bronwyn LincolnPartner, MelbourneT +61 3 9288 [email protected]
Elizabeth MacknayPartner, PerthT +61 8 9211 [email protected]
Gavin MargetsonPartner, TokyoT +81 3 5412 [email protected]
07GLOBAL ARBITRATION: hIGhLIGhTs Of 2012
Vladimir MelnikovPartner, MoscowT +7 495 36 [email protected]
Isabelle MichouPartner, ParisT +33 1 53 57 74 [email protected]
David OppermanPartner, MelbourneT +61 3 9288 [email protected]
Alexei PanichPartner, MoscowT +7 495 36 [email protected]
Chris ParkerPartner (admitted in England) T +1 917 542 [email protected]
Stuart PatersonPartner, DubaiT +971 4 428 [email protected]
Ignacio PazPartner, MadridT +34 91 423 [email protected]
Nicholas PeacockPartner, LondonT +44 20 7466 [email protected]
Manuel RiveroDisputes consultant, MadridT +34 91 423 [email protected]
Donald RobertsonPartner, SydneyT +61 2 9225 [email protected]
Dominic RoughtonPartner, TokyoT +81 3 5412 [email protected]
Craig ShepherdPartner, DubaiT +971 4 428 [email protected]
Eduardo Soler TappaDisputes consultant, MadridT +34 91 423 [email protected]
Surapol SrangsomwongManaging partner, BangkokT +66 2 [email protected]
May TaiPartner, BeijingT +86 21 [email protected]
Craig TevendalePartner, LondonT +44 20 7466 [email protected]
Matthew WeinigerPartner, LondonT +44 20 7466 2364 [email protected]
ABU DHABIHerbert Smith Freehills LLPT +971 2 813 5000F +971 2 813 5100
BANGKOKHerbert Smith Freehills (Thailand) Ltd T +66 2657 3888F +66 2636 0657
BEIJINGHerbert Smith Freehills LLPT +86 10 6535 5000F +86 10 6535 5055
BELFASTHerbert Smith Freehills LLPT +44 28 9025 8200 F +44 28 9025 8201
BRISBANEHerbert Smith FreehillsT +61 7 3258 6666F +61 7 3258 6444
BRUSSELSHerbert Smith Freehills LLPT +32 2 511 7450F +32 2 511 7772
DAMMAM Al-Ghazzawi Professional AssociationHerbert Smith Freehills LLP associated firm T +966 3 8331611F +966 3 8331981
DOHAHerbert Smith Freehills Middle East LLPT +974 4429 4000 F +974 4429 4001
DUBAIHerbert Smith Freehills LLP T +971 4 428 6300 F +971 4 365 3171
HONG KONGHerbert Smith FreehillsT +852 2845 6639F +852 2845 9099
JAKARTAHiswara Bunjamin and TandjungHerbert Smith Freehills LLP associated firmT +62 21 574 4010F +62 21 574 4670
JEDDAHAl-Ghazzawi Professional AssociationHerbert Smith Freehills LLP associated firmT +966 2 6531576F +966 2 6532612
LONDONHerbert Smith Freehills LLP T +44 20 7374 8000F +44 20 7374 0888
MADRIDHerbert Smith Freehills Spain LLP T +34 91 423 4000F +34 91 423 4001
MELBOURNEHerbert Smith FreehillsT +61 3 9288 1234F +61 3 9288 1567
MOSCOWHerbert Smith Freehills CIS LLPT +7 495 363 6500F +7 495 363 6501
NEW YORKHerbert Smith Freehills New York LLPT +1 917 542 7600F +1 917 542 7601
PARISHerbert Smith Freehills Paris LLPT +33 1 53 57 70 70F +33 1 53 57 70 80
PERTHHerbert Smith FreehillsT +61 8 9211 7777F +61 8 9211 7878
RIYADH Al-Ghazzawi Professional AssociationHerbert Smith Freehills LLP associated firmT +966 1 4632374F +966 1 4627566
SHANGHAIHerbert Smith Freehills LLPT +86 21 2322 2000F +86 21 2322 2322
SINGAPOREHerbert Smith Freehills LLPT +65 6868 8000F +65 6868 8001
SYDNEYHerbert Smith FreehillsT +61 2 9225 5000F +61 2 9322 4000
TOKYOHerbert Smith FreehillsT +81 3 5412 5412F +81 3 5412 5413
HERBERTSMITHFREEHILLS.COM
0282B Global arbitration highlights 2012 d2/010213© Herbert Smith Freehills LLP 2013
![Respondent (semi)final - Murdoch University · Cowper v JG Goldner Pty Ltd (1986) 40 SASR 457 7 Crabb v Arun District Council [1975] ... Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/5f65980fa8c19b3039643fed/respondent-semifinal-murdoch-cowper-v-jg-goldner-pty-ltd-1986-40-sasr-457.jpg)
