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.

Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution

About Lexis®PSL

Contributed to

21

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

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
Practice Note

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.

Costs in international arbitration
Practice Note

This Practice Note discusses the types of costs that can be incurred in international arbitration proceedings and considers practical steps that can be taken to assist with the recovery of costs in arbitral procedures in which costs shifting is available. It covers the costs incurred in the arbitration, comprising parties’ legal fees and disbursements and costs of the arbitration (or ‘arbitration costs’), including the arbitrators’ fees and any institution’s fees and administrative charges, liability for costs, allocation and recoverability of costs and the arbitral tribunal’s costs award. It also covers security for costs and links out to further content on this subject.

Expropriation—investment treaty arbitration
Practice Note

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.

Limitation periods in arbitration (England & Wales)
Practice Note

This Practice Note considers how the statutory limitation regime (or framework) in England & Wales applies to arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The Practice Note also considers the ability of parties to an arbitration to agree different time limits for the commencement of arbitration proceedings and the time limits which apply to the enforcement of arbitral awards. It is important to commence proceedings in accordance with any relevant limitation period or the claim may be time-barred.

Most favoured nation clauses in investment treaty arbitration
Practice Note

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.

Securing investment protection for foreign direct investment
Practice Note

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.

Umbrella clauses in investment treaty arbitration
Practice Note

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 service
Precedent

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
Precedent

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
Precedent

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)—introduction and factual scenario
Precedent

This case study illustrates 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
Precedent

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)
Precedent

This case study illustrates how parties may approach an application pursuant to section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) for a ruling on whether the arbitral tribunal has substantive jurisdiction where the applicant has not participated in the arbitral proceedings.

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

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.

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

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)
Precedent

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 claim form
Precedent

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 appointment of party-appointed arbitrator and request for appointment of other party-appointed arbitrator
Precedent

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 sections 14–18 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Case study—commencement of arbitration and appointment of arbitrator (AA 1996, ss 14-18)—notice of arbitration and request to agree appointment of sole arbitrator
Precedent

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).

Practice areas

Panel

  • Specialist Panel

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.