Ben Sanderson#3994

Ben Sanderson

Ben Sanderson has worked as a partner in the international arbitration group in the London office of Kirkland & Ellis and now works at DLA Piper. He has represented clients across a range of industries, including the energy, mining and technology sectors. His practice focuses, in particular, on high-value international commercial arbitrations - both institutional and ad hoc - and bilateral investment treaty claims.

Contributed to

15

AA 1996—securing the attendance of a witness or the production of documents (s 43)
AA 1996—securing the attendance of a witness or the production of documents (s 43)
Practice Notes

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.

Arbitration in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties [Archived]
Arbitration in intra-EU bilateral investment treaties [Archived]
Practice Notes

This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained.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.

Most favoured nation clauses in investment treaty arbitration
Most favoured nation clauses in investment treaty arbitration
Practice Notes

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.

Umbrella clauses in investment treaty arbitration
Umbrella clauses in investment treaty arbitration
Practice Notes

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.

Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—acknowledgment of
Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—acknowledgment of
Precedents

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.

Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—claim form
Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—claim form
Precedents

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.

Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—draft order
Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—draft order
Precedents

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.

Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—witness statement
Case study—application to set aside appointment of sole arbitrator (AA 1996, s 17)—witness statement
Precedents

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.

Case study—challenging jurisdiction by non-participation (AA 1996, s 72)—arbitration claim form
Case study—challenging jurisdiction by non-participation (AA 1996, s 72)—arbitration claim form
Precedents

This draft arbitration claim form is 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 the court to challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

Case study—challenging jurisdiction by non-participation (AA 1996, s 72)—witness statement
Case study—challenging jurisdiction by non-participation (AA 1996, s 72)—witness statement
Precedents

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.

Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14–18)
Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14–18)
Precedents

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.

Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14–18)—AA 1996, s 18
Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14–18)—AA 1996, s 18
Precedents

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.

Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14-18)—notice of
Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14-18)—notice of
Precedents

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.

Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14-18)—notice of
Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14-18)—notice of
Precedents

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).

Is a tree preservation order considered a latent or patent defect in title?
Is a tree preservation order considered a latent or patent defect in title?
Q&A

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

Practice Area

Panel

  • Contributing Author

Education

  • St Catherine's College, Oxford (first-class honours)
  • College of Law: LPC (distinction)

If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.