Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court has given judgment in favour of four creditors who brought an application challenging the decision of the joint supervisors of a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) to reject their proofs of debt for the purpose of a dividend. Following oral evidence and a thorough examination of the documentary evidence, the court was satisfied that debts were owed to the creditors by an insolvent construction company, and therefore ordered the joint supervisors to admit the creditors’ proofs. Jessica Powers, barrister at New Square Chambers, provides comment and analysis.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Commercial Court has clarified when expert evidence on foreign law will be permitted in a challenge to the enforcement of a foreign judgment. In a complex and wide-ranging decision, it has also addressed underlying issues of public policy, state immunity and the distinction between commercial and sovereign acts in enforcement against states. From a practical perspective, the court has given guidance on case management issues in high value and complex enforcement proceedings, including the very limited circumstances in which bifurcation will be appropriate in a jurisdictional challenge. The judgment relates to two interlinked applications in the context of the Republic of Argentina's challenge to the recognition and enforcement of a US$16bn US court judgment. Written by Harriet Campbell, senior knowledge lawyer at Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP.

This Practice Note sets out the French position on challenging the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in the French courts; and arbitration related anti-suit injunctions. Note: the French cases referred to below are not reported by LexisNexis® UK. Challenging the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals in France The rules differ depending on whether such a challenge is made before or after the arbitral award has been rendered. Challenging the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals before the arbitral award is rendered Under French law, before the arbitral award being rendered, it is the arbitral tribunal which determines whether it has jurisdiction to rule over a given dispute. This principle is known as the principle of competence-competence. This principle is generally considered as having both a positive and a negative component. The positive component is reflected in article 1465 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (FCCP), which provides that ‘[t]he arbitral tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction

Arbitration in the BVI The BVI Arbitration Act 2013 (the BVI Act), effective 1 October 2014, is the legislation governing arbitration in the BVI. A notable feature of the Act was the establishment of the BVI International Arbitration Centre (the BVI IAC). While the BVI government is committed to ensuring that through the BVI IAC the BVI will become a viable and notable player in international arbitrations, there remain few reported cases where the seat of arbitration for a dispute is the BVI although the instances are increasing. Consequently, BVI jurisprudence on its supervisory role including a challenge to the arbitral tribunal is limited and will be for the immediate future. However, since the BVI Court is frequently asked to act in order to assist foreign arbitrations, stay proceedings commenced here in favour of arbitration, or to act as an enforcing court to a foreign arbitral award, there is a not an insignificant body of case law on these issues. In

This Practice Note is written in partnership with Peter Halprin, Fiona Cain, and Amanda Laurel Gayer of Haynes and Boone, LLP. This Practice considers why and how a party may challenge an arbitrator’s independence and/or impartiality in arbitral proceedings. Reference is made to the law of England and Wales, the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and certain international arbitration rules. This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Note: Ensuring the arbitral tribunal’s independence and impartiality, which explains the importance of impartiality and independence in the arbitral process. Challenging independence or impartiality Where a party has doubts as to the independence or impartiality of an arbitrator, or has concerns about the ability of an arbitrator to perform their duties, arbitral rules and national laws allow for challenge to the appointment of that arbitrator. A challenge may take place in one of three ways: applying to the arbitrator, applying to the appointing authority (eg the governing body of an arbitral institution) or, if unavailable or once those routes have been exhausted, applying to

This Practice Note considers issues of arbitral jurisdiction in arbitration proceedings under German law. Note: all German judgments referred to in this Practice Note are not reported by LexisNexis®. Introduction to jurisdiction under German arbitration law Germany is a traditionally arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. The German law on arbitration is set out in Book 10 (sections 1025–1066) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO). Book 10 of the ZPO is closely modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration (the Model Law). The German Ministry of Justice has published an unofficial English translation of the ZPO. Quotations from the ZPO in this Practice Note are taken from that translation. In terms of challenging the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals, German law does not grant the tribunal ultimate competence to determine its jurisdiction. There is no exclusive ‘Kompetenz-Kompetenz’ under German law. Rather, the decision of a tribunal on jurisdiction is subject to full review by the state courts. However, in order

This Practice Note considers matters of tribunal jurisdiction under Swedish law. The Tribunal’s Power to Determine its Own Jurisdiction (kompetenz-kompetenz) Section 2 of the Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA) provides as follows: 'The arbitrators may rule on their own jurisdiction to decide the dispute. If the arbitrators have issued a decision that they have jurisdiction to decide the dispute, a party may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal. Such appeal shall be filed no later than 30 days from the day that the party received the decision. The arbitrators may continue the arbitral proceedings pending the determination by the court. The arbitrators may continue the arbitral proceedings pending the determination by the court. The provisions of sections 34 and 36 shall apply in respect of an action to challenge an arbitral award which includes a decision in respect of jurisdiction.' Accordingly, Swedish law recognises the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz (la compétance de la compétance), which implies that the arbitrators have the authority

Planning analysis: This case looks in detail at a particular form of traffic regulation order (TRO) under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (RTRA 1984), a Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) order Many LTNs have been introduced during lockdown, with the aim of limiting vehicular traffic. It is one of a number of such challenges. This case looks in particular at whether three LTNs made as ‘experimental traffic orders’ (ETOs) under RTRA 1984 were in fact ‘experimental’ as opposed to permanent and whether the procedure adopted and decisions made accorded with the authority’s public sector equality duty (PSED) under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), in light of the claimant’s and other residents’ disabilities. Further the claimant tested the meaning of the authority’s duty to consult ‘such other organisations…representing persons likely to be affected by…the order as [it] thinks it appropriate to consult’. The court declined to infer that the ETOs were not experimental; it also held that Lambeth had complied with EqA 2010, s 149 and was consistent with Lord Justice McCombe’s judgment in R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in this instance despite the fact that a fuller formal assessment of equality impacts was to be carried out at a later stage in the statutory process. In addition, the judge concluded that Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (the 1996 Regulations) did not require specific bodies, including a specific disability charity, to be consulted and also pointed to the objection process which was available in any event following publication of the ETO. Written by Celina Colquhoun, barrister at 39 Essex Chamber.

The Practice Note considers challenging the substantive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal under the law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA, Saudi or Saudi Arabia). It also considers, briefly, how to challenge the jurisdiction of the Saudi courts in respect of claims subject to an arbitration agreement. The Practice Note also considers the availability of anti-suit interim relief in support of arbitration under Saudi law. The relevant legal framework • the Saudi Arbitration Law issued through Royal Decree No. M/34 on 16 April 2012 (the Arbitration Law) based on the UNICTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The Arbitration Law applies to arbitration proceedings taking place in Saudi Arabia and to arbitration proceedings held outside Saudi Arabia when the parties agree to the Arbitration Law being the governing law of the proceedings (Arbitration Law, Article 2) • the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law issued by Cabinet of Ministers’ decision number 541 on 22 May 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law) • the Enforcement

This Practice Note examines the principles the court will apply in deciding whether visual identification evidence can be excluded at trial. It identifies common breaches of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) Code of Practice D (PACE Code D) and explains the principles that govern the admissibility of dock identifications and recognition evidence. Breach of PACE Codes of Practice The arrangement and conduct of identification procedures are governed by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) Codes of Practice, Code D, known as PACE Code D. A breach of PACE Code D will occur if: • the police fail to hold an identification procedure in circumstances where they are required to do so (ie when identification is in dispute and an identification procedure would serve a useful purpose), or • when conducting an identification procedure, the police fail to observe the procedural requirements The procedural requirements for each identification procedure are set out in the annexes to PACE Code D. See Practice Notes: Eyewitness identification evidence and Advising

Chambers are the offices from which self‑employed barristers (and advocates in Scotland) practise, sharing premises, clerking, administration and marketing while remaining individually self‑employed. The term is descriptive rather than formally defined in legislation, but is used consistently by the Bar and courts across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. A set of chambers usually consists of a group of counsel, led by one or more heads of chambers, supported by clerks and other staff who manage diaries, fees and client relationships. Instructions are accepted by individual counsel, not by the set as a legal entity, although chambers branding is central to practice development and practice area positioning. Chambers play an important role in pupillage recruitment, supervision and professional training, and often operate internal policies on conflicts of interest, equality, complaints and quality assurance aligned with Bar regulatory requirements. In Scotland, “stables” is also used for similar groupings of advocates; the term “chambers” is still widely understood. Solicitors and in‑house lawyers may refer to barristers’ or advocates’ chambers when instructing counsel, selecting specialists in particular practice areas or jurisdictions.

Legal arrangement in which an entity which is not a party to a lawsuit, finances and/or otherwise pursues a litigant's claim in exchange for receiving a portion of the judgment award.