Paul-Raphael Shehadeh – International Arbitration

April 23, 2024April 23, 2024 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

United Kingdom Supreme Court Reaches Decision on the Jurisdiction to Grant Anti-Suit Injunctions to Enforce Foreign-Seat Arbitration Agreements

This morning, the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court gave its decision in a case centered on the question of whether the English court can properly grant anti-suit injunctive relief in support of an arbitration seated in another jurisdiction (UniCredit Bank GmbH (Respondent) v RusChemAlliance LLC (Appellant), Case ID: 2024/0015).

Lord Reed of Allermuir, President of the Supreme Court, gave the court’s decision at a short hearing this morning. A full written judgment is to follow: Continue reading “United Kingdom Supreme Court Reaches Decision on the Jurisdiction to Grant Anti-Suit Injunctions to Enforce Foreign-Seat Arbitration Agreements”

April 12, 2024 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

The first ever summary dismissal of ICSID annulment grounds for being “manifestly without legal merit”

On 2 February 2024, the ICSID ad hoc Annulment Committee in Nachingwea and others v. Tanzania, ICSID Case No. ARB/20/38 (the “Nachingwea Committee”) issued a Decision dismissing much of Tanzania’s annulment application, having found those parts to be “manifestly without legal merit”.

Issued ten years after the first consideration by an ad hoc Annulment Committee of Rule 41(5) objections to an annulment application,[1] the Nachingwea Committee’s Decision is the first to grant a Rule 41(5) preliminary objection.[2]

Rule 41(5) provides an expedited procedure for the disposal of claims which are manifestly without legal merit at an early stage of proceedings.[3] It is available in ICSID arbitration proceedings, as well as mutatis mutandis in Chapter VII proceedings,[4] including annulment proceedings.[5] Continue reading “The first ever summary dismissal of ICSID annulment grounds for being “manifestly without legal merit””

February 28, 2024February 28, 2024 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

Apparent bias and section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act (1996)

The English court seldom removes an arbitrator due to apparent bias (to be distinguished from actual bias), but in the recent case of H1 & Anor v W & Ors [2024] EWHC 382 (Comm), it did. The arbitration concerned film insurance and a dispute over an accident on the film set. The sole arbitrator, a non-lawyer industry specialist nominated by the British Film Institute, was removed for apparent bias following a successful application under section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996.

The judgment is noteworthy for its treatment of section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996, but also because of Calver J’s decision to anonymise the parties and the arbitrator. Continue reading “Apparent bias and section 24(1)(a) of the Arbitration Act (1996)”

September 7, 2023February 12, 2024 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

UK Law Commission Publishes Its Review of the Arbitration Act 1996: Final Report and Bill

On 6 September the Law Commission published its final report and recommendations on reforms to the Arbitration Act. The full report is available here.

Below follows a non-exhaustive summary of some of the key changes:

Statutory Rule on Governing Law of an Arbitration Agreement

English law has developed common law rules to determine which law governs an arbitration agreement. These rules were summarised by the UK Supreme Court in Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, and largely confirmed in Kabab-Ji SAL v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48. Broadly speaking, absent an agreement to the contrary the choice of law of the main contract would also apply to the arbitration agreement.

The proposed new Section 6A would alter that framework for agreements post-dating the new Act becoming law. The new Section 6A still recognises the parties’ positive choice of governing law in the arbitration agreement as determinative. Failing such choice, however, the law of the seat will be applied as the governing law.

Continue reading “UK Law Commission Publishes Its Review of the Arbitration Act 1996: Final Report and Bill”

August 11, 2023August 11, 2023 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

ICSID Caseload Statistics (2023 Fiscal Year)

The ICSID Caseload Statistics have now been updated with new data for the fiscal year 2023 (“FY2023”) to capture statistics drawn from cases registered under the ICSID Convention, the Additional Facility Rules and other ICSID-administered cases between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”) was established in 1966 by the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”) as a means of furthering the World Bank’s objective of promoting international investment through the provision of a neutral and reliable forum for the resolution of disputes between foreign investors and States. To date, the ICSID Convention counts 158 Contracting States and seven signatory States, bringing the total number of ICSID Member States to 165. Continue reading “ICSID Caseload Statistics (2023 Fiscal Year)”

July 6, 2023February 12, 2024 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

The Development and Structure of the Court of Arbitration for Sport

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) is the world’s leading arbitration institution for sports-related disputes.

Headquartered in Lausanne, Switzerland, the CAS has further branches (described as “decentralised offices”) in Sydney and New York City which have been in operation since the mid-nineties. It also functions as an ad hoc tribunal during the Olympic Games.

According to statistics published by the CAS, a total of 8,865 cases were submitted to the CAS between 1986 and 2021. Rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all approach to dispute resolution procedure, the CAS offers a suite of different dispute resolution services to serve the sports industry (see further below).

Continue reading “The Development and Structure of the Court of Arbitration for Sport”

March 10, 2023 by Paul-Raphael Shehadeh

UK Government announces intention to sign and ratify the Singapore Convention on Mediation

On 2 March 2023, the Ministry of Justice published the UK Government’s response (“Consultation Response”) to the consultation on the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (New York, 2019) (the “Singapore Convention on Mediation”, or the “Convention”) concluding that “it is the right time for the UK to become a Party”.

In some measure, the Singapore Convention on Mediation seeks to replicate the success of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). Continue reading “UK Government announces intention to sign and ratify the Singapore Convention on Mediation”