English law – International Arbitration

November 14, 2024November 14, 2024 by Mark Handley

English court rejects arbitral appeal as out of time and refuses to grant 5 day extension

The decision in Friedhelm Eronat v CNPC International (Chad) Limited [2024] EWHC 2880 (Comm) underlines, with some emphasis, the strictness of the deadlines applied in relation to appeals brought under the Arbitration Act.

In this case the parties had contractually varied the period for making an appeal. They agreed on 30 days, overrising the 28 days in section 70(3) of the Arbitration Act.

The contractual 30-day period (as with the Act’s 28 day period) ran from the date the award was “made”, and not from when the parties received a copy of the award.

In this case the Award was made on 11 April, and was received on 16 April. The appellant to the English court filed its appeal on 16 May, which would have been 30 days from notification of the award, but outside that period when counting from the date of the award itself

The court granted an application to summarily dismiss the appeal as being time barred. The court also refused an application for a retrospective extension, holding that it was an “archetypal” case where no such extension should be given. This was in part because the party had not put in evidence explaining the delay, or why it was appropriate to grant the extension.

May 10, 2024 by Mark Handley

UK Supreme Court clarifies scope of an appeal under the Arbitration Act

The UK Supreme Court’s decision in Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV [2024] UKSC 14, has clarified the scope of, and limitations to, an appeal of law under section 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996.

In the earlier Court of Appeal decision the Court had made findings of fact additional to those made by the original Tribunal. These related to a finding that one of the contracts in question had been varied. Further, the Court of Appeal had decided a question of law which had not been put to the Tribunal.

On the second point, the Supreme Court swiftly concluded that a valid appeal requires that “the point has to [have been] fairly and squarely before the arbitration tribunal for determination“. If the issue had not been before the Tribunal in this way the proceedings cannot properly be an “appeal” on that point.

On the question of whether a court hearing an appeal has the authority to make findings of fact, this point was also dealt with quickly by the Supreme Court at [71]:

“The court’s jurisdiction under section 69 of the Act is limited to appeals on questions of law. It has no jurisdiction in relation to errors of fact and no power to make its own findings of fact“.

The decision is a clear statement of the limits of an appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act and serves as helpful guidance.

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”

March 5, 2024March 5, 2024 by Mark Handley

English court stays litigation in favour of arbitration

Seven companies have a claim against their former director for breach of fiduciary duties. Three of those companies have an arbitration agreement.

All seven companies bring a claim in the English court against the former director who applies to have the court proceedings stayed in favour of arbitration.

The three claimants with an arbitration agreement concede that they must sue in arbitration, and the question then becomes whether the court claims by the other claimants should be stayed in favour of the arbitration or not.

Continue reading “English court stays litigation in favour of arbitration”

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”