Ben Sanderson

This Practice Note sets out how to secure the attendance of a witness in arbitration proceedings pursuant to section 43 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). This Practice Note considers the scope of AA 1996, s 43 and summarises the process for making an application to the English court. The procedure is akin to a witness summons or a non-party disclosure order in litigation. The procedure may be referred to as compelling a witness to attend arbitration proceedings to give evidence or produce documents.

This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides an overview of the debate regarding the compatibility of intra-EU bilateral investment treaties (or intra-EU BITS) in the context of arbitration. It considers recent arbitral and EU Member State court decisions, as well as the position adopted by the key European institutions on this issue (including the ECJ decision in Slovakia v Achmea (Slovak Republic v Achmea, Case C‑284/16)). This area of law may be referred to as: treaty arbitration within the EU; arbitral tribunals settling intra-EU disputes; arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITs; intra-EU investment arbitration; investor-state arbitration under an intra-EU BIT; EU bilateral investment treaties; investor-state dispute settlement within the EU; termination of intra-EU BITs; relationship between EU law and BITs; validity of arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITs.

This Practice Note provides an overview of the different types of expropriation (nationalisation) that may occur under international investment law. If covers the definition of expropriation, the provision in the UK Model bilateral investment treaty (BIT) on expropriation, different types (or forms) of expropriation (direct, indirect and creeping), the issue of what constitutes a regulatory measure and the compensation for investors where a state expropriates an asset (often, required to be prompt, adequate and effective). Claims by investors regarding expropriation (lawful and unlawful) are some of the most common against states in investment treaty arbitration proceedings.

This Practice Note examines the purpose and effect of ‘most favoured nation’ (MFN) clauses in bilateral investment treaties (BITs). It considers decisions in investor-state arbitrations, including International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).arbitration awards, on the scope of their application, including issues relating to their applicability to dispute resolution clauses, treaty exceptions and umbrella clauses. The American English spelling favored is used by authors in this context. This type of provision may be referred to as a most-favoured nation clause.

This Practice Note examines the importance of bilateral and multilateral investment treaties (BITs and MITs, respectively) in providing investors with additional protection for their overseas investments. It covers the risks associated with foreign direct investments (FDI), standards of protections and how to structure FDI to benefit from investment law protection.

This Practice Note considers the use of umbrella clauses (also known as umbrella agreements or observance of undertakings clauses) in bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The Practice Note sets out what is an umbrella clause, provides an example clause, discusses the scope and effect of such clauses and analyses key arbitration decisions (particularly in SGS and Sempra) on the scope of such clauses.

This acknowledgment of service form is part of a case study illustrating how parties may approach an application under AA 1996, s 17 for the court to set aside the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

This draft claim form is part of a case study illustrating how parties may approach an application under section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) for the court to set aside the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

This draft order form is part of a case study illustrating how parties may approach an application under AA 1996, s 17 for the court to set aside the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

This witness statement forms part of a case study illustrating how parties may approach an application under AA 1996, s 17 for the court to set aside the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

This draft arbitration claim form is part of a case study illustrating how party who has not participated in arbitral proceedings may, under section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), apply to court to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

This witness statement forms part of a case study illustrating how a party who has not participated in arbitral proceedings may, under section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), apply to court to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

This case study illustrates how a party may give notice of commencement of the arbitration and seek appointment of the tribunal. It covers the joint appointment of a sole arbitrator and the appointment of arbitrators to a panel of three. It also covers how to apply to court in the event of a party’s failure to appoint. The case study reflects sections 14–18 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

This claim form is part of a case study illustrating how a party may give notice of commencement of the arbitration and seek appointment of the tribunal by the opposing party or, if that fails, from the court. It reflects ss 14–18 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

This notice of appointment of a party-appointed arbitrator and request for appointment of other party appointed arbitrator is part of a case study illustrating how a party may give notice of commencement of the arbitration and seek appointment of the tribunal. It reflects the requirements of sections 14–18 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

This notice of arbitration and request to agree appointment of sole arbitrator is part of a case study illustrating how parties may deal with a situation where a joint appointment is required. The case study reflects ss 14–18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996).

This Q&A considers whether a tree preservation order is a latent or patent defect in title.