The Qatar International Centre for Conciliation & Arbitration (QICCA) has reported that the value of cases it received last year amounted to approximately QR3bn, the majority of which related to construction and contracting contracts. In a statement, Secretary-General of the QICCA of the Qatar Chamber, Ibrahim Shahbik, highlighted that arbitral awards for nearly 35% of the total number of cases were rendered last year, Qatar arbitrators presented more than 50% of those appointed to hear arbitration proceedings and 70% of the proceedings conducted under QICCA rules were in English.

Qatar International Centre for Conciliation & Arbitration (QICCA) has announced it will hold a seminar on ‘Doha Based Arbitrations and Qatari Law Governed Disputes; Opportunities and Challenges’ on 27 May 2024 at Qatar Chamber in Doha.

Family analysis: The court held that the qualified legal representative (QLR) who was also an alleged abuser’s criminal solicitor could not continue as the court-appointed QLR in the Family Court. There was no suggestion of wrong-doing by the QLR and the President of the Family Division explicitly confirmed as such, but terminated the solicitor’s appointment as the QLR in any event. Adam Bloodworth, solicitor at Duncan Lewis solicitors, considers the issues.

Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has reported on a new treatment for malignant mesothelioma (MPM), a rare and aggressive type of cancer associated with exposure to asbestos. The treatment has shown an increased survival of MPM patients when tested in a trial led by Professor Peter Szlosarek from the Centre for Cancer Cell and Molecular Biology in Barts Cancer Institute. The trial, which showed that survival quadrupled at 36 months, combined chemotherapy with the new drug, ADI-PEG20. Professor Szlosarek has said that the treatment may also be of benefit to other types of cancer.

Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) has announced that they are holding a roundtable discussion regarding the implications of crypto assets for the practice of international arbitration. Experienced arbitration and cryptocurrency lawyers and academics will be in attendance at the Université Paris I, Panthéon Sorbonne, 12 Place du Panthéon, Salle: D306 ‘salle a la fresque’ on Monday, 18 March 2024. The conference is jointly organised by QMUL and Université Paris I – Sorbonne.

The School of International Arbitration (SIA) at Queen Mary University of London will host its 40th anniversary conference 'Arbitration in Context' on 10-11 September 2025. The conference will examine arbitration through economic, sociological, philosophical and regulatory perspectives, featuring speakers from global law firms and academia. Established in 1985 as the first dedicated international arbitration academic institution, the SIA has produced 14 international arbitration surveys and trained over 3000 practitioners from 120 jurisdictions. The event includes six themed sessions and a gala dinner at Lincoln's Inn.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: The issue before the Supreme Court in Adelekun v Ho was whether it is permissible in claims to which Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) applies to order set off of a defendant’s costs against a claimant’s costs. The court unanimously held that, as a matter of construction, set off in this context was a species of enforcement and therefore precluded where it exceeded the cap reflecting the sum of any orders for damages and interest made in favour of the claimant. Therefore, where there is no such order (eg because the claim concludes by settlement rather than by order, or is dismissed), a defendant cannot recover any of its costs absent some other exception (eg fundamental dishonesty) applying. Any costs orders in favour of a claimant are protected from set off, even where the balance of costs would be heavily in the defendant’s favour. Likewise, where the claimant only recovers limited damages, a defendant who eg betters its Part 36 offer cannot recover any of its costs beyond that limit. Written by Andrew Roy, barristers, head of 12 King’s Bench Walk Costs Team, Deputy Costs Judge, junior counsel for the respondent in Adelekun.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC has held that the qualified one-way costs shifting regime applies to detailed assessment proceedings where they arise from a personal injury claim. This is the first case in which the point has been directly addressed and will assist in providing some certainty to claimant personal injury practitioners when advising their client about the extent to which they are protected from adverse costs orders under the qualified one way costs shifting regime (QOCS). Written by David Juckes, barrister at Hailsham Chambers.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: April 2023 will usher in significant changes to the qualified one-way costs shifting (QOCS) regime. The effect of the changes will permit defendants to enforce costs orders made in their favour against costs orders made in favour of claimants. Defendants will also be able to enforce costs orders in the overwhelming majority of cases in which the claim is concluded by way of acceptance of Part 36 offers or Tomlin Orders. The changes apply to claims issued on or after 6 April 2023. Colm Nugent and Martyn Griffiths of Gatehouse Chambers consider these changes, what impact they will have for PI claimant lawyers and what claimant firms of solicitors need to think about in respect of their retainers because of these changes.

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Late discontinuance from a personal injury claimant on the morning of a trial led to the court initially finding that: under CPR 38.4 the claimant’s notice of discontinuance could be set aside; the claim could be struck out under CPR 44.15/CPR 3.4(2) on the grounds that the claimant’s conduct had ‘obstructed the just disposal of the proceedings’; and that under CPR 44.15 this deprived the claimant of QOCS protection on costs. However the Court of Appeal found for the claimant and reminded the parties that: the rationale of QOCS protection was to correct the financial imbalance between claimants and defendants in personal injury claims; where a claimant is not dishonest and merely discontinues based on assessment of their prospects of success this does not ‘begin to provide the powerful reasons upon which a notice of discontinuance could/should be set aside’; and strike out of the case under CPR 3.4(2) requires conduct such as would jeopardise the fairness of the trial process. The claimant’s conduct here fell far short of that. CPR 44.15(c) does not create an independent power to strike out a claim but only deals with the QOCS consequences if a strike out does occur. Written by Marcus Weatherby, partner at Pattinson & Brewer Solicitors.

In Equity Trust (Singapore) Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs, the High Court held that a pension scheme in Singapore did not meet HMRC requirements for a QROPS as it was not open to Singapore residents.

This Q&A considers whether it is appropriate for the manager of the care home where the donor lives to be appointed as replacement attorney in their personal capacity.