International arbitration is, by its very nature, multi-jurisdictional. The international element could come from the parties being located in different jurisdictions, or perhaps having elected to refer disputes to a forum connected to a jurisdiction common to one, all or none of them. There are many factors that play into this decision. For example, one party may want ‘home court’ advantage, or be concerned as to the limit of remedies available in the jurisdiction where the underlying work is taking place. Another party may be more familiar with dispute resolution within a specific jurisdiction, or have easier access to resources if a dispute is determined in a certain place. The overlay to this is the governing law agreed between the parties – it is not unusual for an arbitration tribunal in one jurisdiction to determine a claim governed by the laws of another jurisdiction. The governing law and jurisdiction can be entirely unrelated to the location of the subject matter of the contract.
To read the full text of this post by Duane Morris attorney Chris Recker, please visit the Duane Morris International Arbitration Blog.
By Oliver Kent and Sam Laycock
Disgruntled holidaymakers who have suffered delay at the hands of their airlines are among the potential claimants who may soon find that the familiar phrase, “I’ll see you in court”, doesn’t quite have the same impact it used to. Enter: the ‘Small Claims Paper Determination Pilot’ (“the Pilot”). Introduced under the 143rd Practice Direction Update as PD 51Z1, this update applies to proceedings issued after 1 June 2022 and allows the Courts to determine the outcomes of matters allocated to the small claims track without a hearing (i.e. on paper) and ultimately, without reference to the parties concerned.2
Continue reading “All small claims are equal, but some small claims are more equal than others”
Mr Justice Fraser’s decision in Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Bathgate Realisation Civil Engineering Ltd and Others is one of the more curious decisions you will ever read.
Not that I would particularly encourage anyone to read it. The case necessitated some pretty comprehensive and in-depth legal analysis that means the judgment runs to some 206, fairly dense, paragraphs, and an Appendix; I would challenge even the most avid consumer of legal treatises to read the whole thing in one sitting without their eyes glazing over at some point. Helpfully, my colleague Vijay Bange has already produced a very useful summary of the decision and its legal implications here.
However, the density and depth of the judgment does not mean it is without interest; far from it. In fact I suspect this case will prove to be one of the more fascinating legal tangles the Courts will be asked to unravel this year. This article looks at some of the more curious aspects of this dispute, away from the key aspects of the case. Continue reading “Multiplex v Bathgate: Legal Riddles and Unsolvable Problems”
I am an unashamedly massive fan of the Back to the Future film franchise. Yes, even the sequels.
One of my favourite lines from the franchise is spoken at the end of the first film and the beginning of the second. Doc, Marty and Jennifer are about to travel to the distant future (2015, to be precise). When Marty points out there might not be enough road to get up to 88 mph, Doc flips down his brushed aluminium shades and intones: “Roads? Where we’re going we don’t need roads.” And the DeLorean flies off to the future thanks to an early 21st century hover conversion.
Brings a smile to my face every time
Continue reading “The Digital Age Still Needs Infrastructure”
They say that the house always wins, but as the recent case of Andrew Green -v- Petfre (Gibraltar) Limited t/a Betfred illustrates, even the house can get caught out sometimes.
When lucky punter Andrew Green won over £1.7m following a 5 ½ hour stint on Betfred’s ‘Frankie Dettori’s Magic Seven Blackjack’ game in January 2018, he was dismayed to find out a few days later that the company was refusing to pay out, claiming that there was a glitch in the game, and that the house rules stated that, in those circumstances, Betfred were not required to pay. Mr Green sued, and the matter eventually ended up in Court. Following a hearing on 15 October 2020, Mrs Justice Foster DBE granted Mr Green summary judgment and awarded him his winnings.
Continue reading “Luck of the Law: Lessons to be Learned from Green v Petfre”
Adjudication can be a frustrating experience, particularly for those who have been faced with a decision of the adjudicator that is quite obviously (to you) wrong, but nonetheless enforceable.
This situation arises because it has long been accepted that, in adjudication, “the need to have the “right” answer has been subordinated to the need to have an answer quickly…” per Chadwick LJ in Carillion v Devonport Royal Dockyard  EWCA 1358.
The Court’s stance on this issue is born from the original intent of the statutory scheme, which was to provide a means for contractors and subcontractors to address cash-flow problems caused by illegitimate delays or refusals to pay. In order to achieve that, adjudication decisions have to bear the weight of authority, otherwise every adjudication decision would immediately be challenged by the losing party.
The Courts also take into account the fact that the adjudicator is tasked with deciding often very complex and detailed disputes in a very short period of time. Errors in decision-making from time to time are therefore inevitable, but the Courts have determined that that shouldn’t be allowed to undermine the process.
Continue reading “GSEL v Sudlows: Adjudication enforcement, natural justice and challenging a decision”