Arbitration analysis: This case involved an application to Commercial Court of Moscow Region Arbitration Court for recognition and enforcement of a Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) arbitral award. The claimant, an Austrian company, commenced SCC arbitration against the respondent, an English company, for breach of contract. The arbitral tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant and ordered the respondent to pay damages and costs in excess of EUR 2m. As the respondent did not comply with the arbitral award, the claimant sought to enforce the award in Russia against a Russian company ‘OOO Kimberli-Klark’, claiming that this company and the respondent are ‘the same economic entity’. The respondent did not attend the hearing in Russia and ‘OOO Kimberli-Klark’ provided written submissions stating that the arbitration award could not be enforced against it due to the latter not being a party to the arbitration agreement between the claimant and the respondent. The Russian court held that due to the fact that both the respondent and ‘OOO Kimberli-Klark’ belong to the same group of companies, they can be considered the same economic entity. The application to enforce the arbitration award was therefore granted. Written by Irina Tymczyszyn FCIArb, arbitrator and counsel, Tymczyszyn ArbitrationSIBUR International v Kimberly-Clark Ltd [A41-72465/2024], Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region

Please click for an Excel version of this register. Please

Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: This Scottish case concerned whether and to what extent an injured third party can rely on an insurance policy of an insured wrongdoer where that insured party’s liability was determined by decree or judgment in default at a time when the insured party was in liquidation. In subsequent proceedings, where the wronged claimant sought to rely on the wrongdoer’s insurance, the defendant insurers to the action argued that the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010) required that there was a full merits determination as opposed to a default judgment before the provisions of the TP(RAI)A 2010 applied. The Court rejected this argument finding: (i) there was nothing in the statutory language of the TP(RAI)A 2010 which imposed an additional gloss on judgment or decree that required the judgment or decree to be after a consideration of the full merits. (ii) If the drafters intended this meaning, express words would have been used. (iii) Further, the TP(RAI)A 2010 represented a development in the law and cases decided under the provision of the pre-2010 statute were of little relevance. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

ARCHIVED:  This flowchart has been archived and is no longer maintained. This Flowchart provides an overview of the application of the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (TP(RAI)A 2010) and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. Practical guidance: • practitioners acting for claimants should consider at an early stage whether it is advantageous to engage with (potential) defendants that are or may become insolvent to obtain access to documents to assess coverage and available limits and to prompt

Specific definitions used in this Precedent: Customer Default • means the Customer’s: (i) breach of any provision of this Agreement; (ii) negligence; or (iii) other unlawful act or omission; Customer Material • means [insert description][ and] any[ other] materials, information, documents, data, tools, equipment or other items owned by (or licensed by a third party to) the Customer or its Affiliates and provided to the Supplier relating to the Services; Deliverables • means the deliverables set out in [insert, eg Schedule X]; Intellectual Property Rights • means

Employment analysis: One hundred years ago this month, in November 1923, Lord Hewart delivered a famous legal judgment on the principles of open justice, declaring it of fundamental importance that ‘justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done’. It is in that spirit of open justice that employment tribunals (ET) today remain open to the public and the content can freely be reported on in the press and media. As a result, when ET claims are issued, it is not uncommon for the parties to be anxious about who will have access to documentation that is presented to the ET in proceedings, and what they can do with it. In light of a recent announcement that ET hearings will now be routinely recorded from November 2023, we take this opportunity to explore what ‘open justice’ means in the context of online hearings, and who can see, or hear, what and when. This analysis is written by David Ashmore, partner, Alison Heaton, knowledge management lawyer, and Mahmuda Kamalee, trainee solicitor, all at Reed Smith.

What is the background to third party access to private electricity networks? Historically, successive packages of UK and, prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU (see: Brexit: Energy—overview), European legislation have driven the separation of electricity retailing from the ownership and operation of monopoly networks. Customers connected to networks that were exempt from these requirements did not benefit from the resulting increase in retail competition. So-called ‘private wires’ are a part of property estates of all kinds—from industrial parks to hospitals, university campuses to airports—and also feature in some new-build energy or multi-utility services company arrangements. In Citiworks AG v Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit als Landesregulierungsbehörde, the Court of Justice of the European Union (formerly the European Court of Justice) expressed concerns about the effect these exemptions would have on integration of European energy markets and ruled that customers must be given access to alternative energy supplies. The position was clarified and reinforced in the EU's Third Package of internal EU electricity market measures in Directive 2009/72/EC (Electricity

Consultant 1 The Consultant warrants and undertakes to the Employer that no act, omission or default of the Consultant in relation to the Services shall constitute, cause or contribute to a breach by the Employer of the Employer's obligations under the Building Contract, any other agreement with any Interested

Dispute Resolution analysis: Teare J, in making a third party costs order, provides a recap of the authority in Dymocks and the impact of the Court of Appeal decision in Deutsche Bank. The case involved a non represented third party and raises practical concerns as to the ability of such parties to be able to understand the underlying authorities to enable cogent submissions to be made.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of a judge at first instance to stay an application for a third-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 until after the conclusion of the detailed assessment of the underlying bill of costs. Dismissing Nigeria’s appeal, the Court of Appeal held that there is no presumption that a third-party costs application should be determined before a detailed assessment. The question is purely one of case management, to be decided in accordance with the interests of justice and the overriding objective. The decision, being within the scope of discretion allowed a judge, was not amenable to appeal; that a different judge would have reached a different conclusion was not in point. Where there is a real question whether any further sum will be payable following assessment (particularly where a substantial payment on account has already been made and costs are to be assessed on the standard basis), it is legitimate to stay the third party application to avoid wasting court resources on what may prove to be a pointless satellite exercise. Of general and at least equal significance to costs practitioners were the Court of Appeal’s strong comments (obiter dicta in strict terms) deprecating disproportionate detailed assessment processes and endorsing the use of sampling as a case management tool in cases involving very significant bills of legal costs. Written by Lauren Godfrey, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

This Practice Note sets out the requirements and procedure when enforcing an order made in family proceedings by way of a third party debt order. Third party debt orders were introduced by the Family Procedure Rules 2010 and replaced garnishee orders. It details debts that are capable of enforcement, how to apply and serve the interim third party debt order, and the drawbacks of a final third party debt order. Hardship payments orders and cost implications are also considered. A third party debt order is a method of enforcement by which a creditor may enforce a debt against money owed to the debtor by a third party who is within the jurisdiction. Most often, this will be money held in the debtor's name in a bank or building society, or money owed to a self-employed debtor in the course of their trade. The court has a discretion as to whether to grant a third party debt order that will depend on the circumstances at the time of enforcement. The order is obtained in two stages: an interim

An order whereby a judgment debt is enforced by ordering a third party to pay money, otherwise owed to the debtor, directly to the judgment creditor.