Arbitration analysis: This case involved two applications under Section 39(2) of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking the release of a lien on an arbitral award and revision of the fees payable to the arbitrator by the applicant. The applicant had failed to pay its portion of the arbitrator's fees, as a consequence of which the arbitrator exercised a lien over the arbitral award, which meant that the applicant did not receive the arbitral award and could not challenge it. The applications were dismissed. The court held that the fees fixed by the arbitrator could not be called into question by the applicant and that they had been fixed by the arbitrator during the arbitration proceedings and thus accepted by the applicant. The court also noted that the arbitrator's fees were payable notwithstanding a moratorium order issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated against the applicant (Moratorium Order) and that the fees of the arbitrator, who issued the arbitral award prior to the Moratorium Order, should be paid in priority over other debts in the insolvency process. The court observed that it was in the interest of the applicant to pay the fees so that it could challenge the arbitral award and if arbitrators are not paid their fees on account of an order of moratorium, that will defeat the purpose of arbitration because competent arbitrators would be averse to accepting arbitral appointments in disputes involving companies facing financial crises. Written by Anuradha Agnihotri, Of Counsel at Herbert Smith Freehills and Didon Misri, associate at Herbert Smith Freehills.

Arbitration analysis: This case involved Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd (‘Aiteo’), an African energy company, challenging four partial awards under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Aiteo alleged serious irregularity based on apparent bias by one of the tribunal members, Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE (‘DEG’). The court found that there was apparent bias which constitutes serious irregularity, but emphasized that Aiteo had to demonstrate substantial injustice for the challenge to succeed. Ultimately, the court remitted one of the four partial awards for reconsideration while dismissing the application concerning the other three. This judgment underscores critical issues related to the appearance of bias in arbitration, particularly regarding arbitrators' disclosure obligations. It highlights the importance of transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest and the duties of parties in the selection of arbitrators. The decision serves as a guide for practitioners on how to effectively challenge awards under s. 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act and addresses the nature of arbitral institutions' decisions. Written by Toheeb Amuda, managing partner at Lawvocate Attorneys.

Arbitration analysis: The Republic of Cameroon sought annulment of the final award of 22 September 2021 made in favour of Garoubé on the ground that the chairman of the arbitral tribunal was pro-investor biased as he did not disclose all his prior appointments in state/investor arbitration disputes, and because he displayed ‘hostility’ against Cameroon during the proceedings. This case relates to the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality taken in its two branches, the arbitrator’s duty to disclose all situations that ‘in the eyes of the parties’ may cast doubt on the arbitrator’s independence and impartiality, and on the actual behaviour of the arbitrator that is susceptible of establishing a bias which in turn shows his absence of impartiality. In its decision of 3 October 2023, the Paris Court of appeals rejected the Republic of Cameroon’s application. The court held that the claim for lack of disclosure was inadmissible because the Republic of Cameroon had not raised the alleged irregularity before the arbitral tribunal itself, and regarding the alleged hostile conduct of the chairman that circumstances that support its case, taken individually or together, are not sufficient to substantiate its complaint in this respect. This decision illustrates the rigour with which the conditions necessary to call into question the impartiality of arbitrators is assessed by French Courts and the need for the parties to provide evidence of tangible elements in support of their claim. To have a chance to prevail, the circumstances which ‘in the eyes of the parties’ are likely to vitiate the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator in their own mind must be assessed with the court's ‘spectacles’. Written by Christophe Dugué, Independent Arbitrator and Counsel at Christophe Dugué Law, Paris.

Arbitration analysis: The Delhi High Court has recently granted an anti-arbitration injunction in Engineering Projects (India) Ltd v MSA Global LLC (Oman), staying the ongoing ICC proceedings seated in Singapore on account of the arbitrator’s non-disclosure of a prior appointment by the opposing party’s chairman. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, a learned Single Judge of the Court, held that such non-disclosure, struck at the root of party consent and procedural fairness. The learned Single Judge held the arbitral proceedings as being prima facie vexatious and oppressive, and thus injuncted the said proceedings. This landmark decision takes a divergent view from previous decisions of the court, which traditionally followed a ‘hands off’ approach particularly in foreign seated arbitrations. It sets a potentially dangerous precedent where an Indian Court may interfere in the arbitral process notwithstanding the fact that the parties have chosen a seat outside India, particularly in cases where procedural fairness is involved. Written by Saurabh Seth, founder at Chambers of Saurabh Seth.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 7 May 2018; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission merger investigation into the proposed acquisition of Ilva by ArcelorMittal (Case M.8444). The transaction involves horizontal overlaps in markets for flat carbon steel. Latest development On 7 May 2018, the Commission conditionally approved the transaction, subject to commitments. In terms of commitments, the Commission has accepted a package of remedies that will see the divestment of:• production assets in Belgium, the Czech republic, Luxembourg, Italy, Romania and Macedonia, and • distribution assets in France and Italy. Parties ArcelorMittal S.A. is a Luxembourg-based multinational steel manufacturing, listed on stock exchanges in Amsterdam, Barcelona, Bilbao, Luxembourg, Madrid, New York, Paris and Valencia. ArcelorMittal is the world's leading steel and mining company, with a presence in 60 countries and with industrial production facilities in 18 countries. Ilva S.p.A., currently controlled by the Italian government, is a manufacturer of flat carbon steel. Its production facilities are located in Italy, the main site being

An architect is the designer of a project. Where there is more than one designer (for example, there may be engineers or other consultants who may design specific parts of the project) the architect is commonly the lead designer responsible for ensuring that individual components of the design work together.

Construction analysis: The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 gives a qualifying author of a drawing the moral right of paternity—to be identified as author of their drawings, even where the copyright and right to use the drawing has been assigned to others. If that moral right is infringed the author can bring a claim in damages so long as the right to be identified as author has been asserted by the author. The judgment of O’Farrell J provides a useful summary of the basic elements that are required to bring a claim for infringement of moral rights. In this case, she held that the claimant had not disclosed an arguable cause of action. The claimant also failed to establish an arguable cause of action based on the tort of passing off (a misrepresentation by one trader which damages the goodwill of another). The claimant’s application to amend its claim failed on both counts. Written by Caroline Pope, partner at DLA Piper.

This is an archive of Appendices A–G to the Sponsor Guidance for the Worker, Temporary Worker and Student categories (known respectively as Tier 2 and Tier 5 before 1 December 2020, and Tier 4 before 5 October 2020). It covers versions of the appendices valid from 1 October 2008, up to and including the current guidance versions. For further guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration information using the National Archives website, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendix A This is an archive of Appendix

This is an archive of Sponsor Guidance for the Student category (known as Tier 4 before 5 October 2020). It covers guidance valid from 5 October 2009, up to and including the current guidance versions. For an archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices A–G, see Practice Note: Archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices. Note that this archive also includes Sponsor Guidance relating to Tier 4 Highly Trusted Sponsors, which existed in a separate set of guidance from 22 March 2010 to 4 September 2011, below. The Highly Trusted Sponsor Status was replaced with the Tier 4/Student Sponsor Status. For a link to archived versions of Sponsor Guidance from 16 September 2008–13 August 2009, see Practice Note: Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Workers and Temporary Workers—Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Tiers 2, 4 and 5. For further guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration information using the National Archives, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Students Guidance document name Version Comparison

This is an archive of Sponsor Guidance for the Worker and Temporary Workers categories, which replaced Tiers 2 and 5 from 1 December 2020. It also includes Tiers 2 and 5 Sponsor Guidance from 16 September 2008 until the end of the pre-Brexit Points-Based System. Note that the archive has three main sections, which contain links to archived versions of Sponsor Guidance as follows: • Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Workers and Temporary Workers from 19 November 2020 • Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Tiers 2, 4 and 5 from 16 September 2008–13 August 2009 • Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Tiers 2 and 5 from 5 October 2009–5 October 2020 For an archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices A–G, see Practice Note: Archive of Sponsor Guidance Appendices. For guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration matters using the National Archives, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive of Sponsor Guidance for Workers and Temporary Workers (sponsorship matters) This is an archive

This is an archive of PDF Policy Guidance documents for applicants in work, investment and study categories under the Points-Based System (PBS), and Appendix W of the Immigration Rules, which preceded the post-Brexit immigration system. Note that the Tier 1 (Investor) and Tier 1 (Entrepreneur) categories are still in force for some applicants. The archive can be used for research purposes, in order to see what the relevant guidance stated at a particular point in time. There are also some comparison versions highlighting what changed in each new version. The post-Brexit system largely commenced on 1 December 2020. Under the previous system, the main form of guidance for applicants in each category was a PDF Policy Guidance document. This contrasts with the post-Brexit system, where the main form of guidance for applicants is now the relevant route visa information tool on GOV.UK. For guidance on how to use this archive and to research other immigration information using the National Archives, see Practice Note: Locating guidance and using archives for immigration research. Archive

This case tracker contains a selection of significant employment judgments handed down in 2017. Information relating ongoing cases of significance can be found in our standard Case tracker—Employment. Links to Employment news analysis reports are included where they are available. We are always pleased to receive details of other cases that may be of interest to subscribers. Please use the 'Contact Us' button above and the Lexis®Ask function to send us details. Case Name Citation Topic Court and Judgment Date History STATUS Dewhurst v CitySprint 2202512/2016 WORKER STATUS—Whether a cycle courier is a worker or a self-employed contractor. Central London Employment Tribunal (ET) held that Ms Dewhurst was a worker and entitled to holiday pay for two days, see our report of 10 January 2017. Central London Employment TribunalJudgment on 5 January 2017. Heard on 22 November 2016. Boxer v Excel Group Services 3200365/2016 WORKER STATUS—Whether a cycle courier is a worker or a self-employed contractor. Central London ET held that Mr Boxer was a worker and entitled to holiday pay for one week, see our report