2018

This subtopic is an archive of key news and case analysis articles published in 2018.

In addition, these articles are always stored against the relevant arbitration

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Arbitration News

BCLP publishes 2024 international arbitration survey

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (BCLP) has published its 2024 International Arbitration Survey, focusing on the challenges posed by corruption in arbitration proceedings. The survey reveals that while 82% of respondents are confident in the arbitration process's ability to handle corruption issues, 64% express concern about potential abuse of the arbitral process in such cases. Notably, 67% of respondents favour introducing transparency rules for commercial arbitrations involving states or state-owned entities. The survey also indicates strong support for requiring 'clear and cogent' evidence for corruption allegations, and a majority advocate for additional best practice guidelines in arbitrations involving corruption allegations. These findings underscore the complex interplay between confidentiality, transparency, and procedural integrity in arbitrations dealing with corruption issues.

What’s in a name—court clarifies emergency arbitration decision is an ‘Order’ and not an ‘Award’ (Ashok Kumar Goel and Vyoman India v EbixCash and others)

Arbitration analysis: The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioner’s interim relief application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (Arbitration Act), directing the respondents to furnish an irrevocable bank guarantee for the sum of INR 145 crore. After an arbitral award, interim reliefs granted by the Delhi High Court, an emergency arbitration decision (EA Decision), and the arbitral tribunal’s order, the respondents’ failure to abide by the decisions led the petitioners to file the present application. The court recognized the distinction between an ‘award’ and an ‘order’ by rejecting the respondents’ contention that the EA Decision was an award that had to be enforced under Part II of the Arbitration Act. The court held that the objective of section 9 is to not defeat the purpose of arbitration but recognize party autonomy as the bedrock of arbitration. This decision sheds light on the binding nature of an emergency arbitration decision by classifying it as ‘order’ and the recourse available for interim relief even in international commercial arbitrations. Written by Neeti Sachdeva, registrar and secretary general, and Charvi Krishna, case manager at Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration (MCIA).

HKIAC establishes Beijing Representative Office

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) has announced the establishment of its Beijing Representative Office, marking a significant milestone as the first offshore arbitration institution to set up in Beijing. Set to open on 16 December 2024, the new office will complement HKIAC's existing Shanghai presence, focusing on capacity-building, training, and fostering exchanges within China's arbitration community. The move builds on HKIAC's strong reputation in China-related arbitrations, with 40% of its cases involving Mainland Chinese parties. HKIAC's diverse governance structure and bilingual capabilities position it well to serve both Chinese and international clients. This expansion aims to further HKIAC's role in advancing international arbitration by bridging Chinese and global practitioners as Beijing develops as an international dispute resolution centre.

‘Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract’—Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies scope of arbitration agreement (COSCO Shipping v PT OKI)

Arbitration analysis: This case involved an appeal against the dismissal of an application for an anti-suit injunction restraining the first respondent from continuing foreign court proceedings which had allegedly been brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. Although the foreign court proceedings involved a tortious claim in respect of damage to a trestle bridge caused by a vessel owned by the appellant, it was held that the claim arose out of or was in connection with certain bills of lading evidencing contracts of carriage entered into between the appellant and the first respondent, and had therefore been brought in breach of the arbitration agreement contained in each bill of lading. The appeal was allowed, and an anti-suit injunction granted. In the course of its decision, the court clarified the ambit and scope of the phrase ‘dispute arising out of or in connection with this contract’, which (either in these exact terms or some variation thereof) is commonly found in dispute resolution agreements. The court also provided useful guidance on when a dispute beyond the terms of a contract may nonetheless fall within the scope of an arbitration clause employing such terms. Written by KOH Swee Yen senior counsel, head (International Arbitration Practice) and partner (Commercial & Corporate Disputes Practice) at WongPartnership LLP, and Samuel LOW, associate at WongPartnership LLP.