Menu
Browse Options
Losing Entitlement to Claim and Resort to Dispute Resolution in Construction: Time Bar Provisions and the Turkish Approach

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and should not be regarded as representative of, or binding upon ArbitralWomen and/or the author’s law firm.

Characterized as a topic strongly connected to the dispute resolution arena, time bar provisions appear at the top of the list of priorities with regards to disputes in the construction field. Among many others, a recent decision rendered by the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division (Obrascon Huarte Lain SA v Her Majesty’s Attorney General for Gibraltar [2014] EWHC 1028 (TCC)) confirmed such position while demonstrating the importance of the structure of the procedural provisions and the result of non-compli [...]

Too Much Information or When Information Relating to Arbitration Obscures rather than Clarifies the Landscape

The following thoughts are written aware of the fact that a blog is personal and informational and not a substitute for an academic article. In this spirit the thoughts expressed here are, while fundamental in many respects, also preliminary and tentative in some others.

The quest for more transparency in international (commercial and investment) arbitration captures the attention of novices and veteran insiders and outsiders of this area of dispute resolution. In this respect also the calls for publication of arbitral awards is not entirely new (Julian Lew, Klaus-Peter Berger and Martin Hunter have written on the issue since the late 1970s). The debate about transparency does not automatic [...]

Tipping Point?: What Does the Perenco case say about Fair and Equitable Treatment?

The case of Perenco Ecuador Limited v Republic of Ecuador, ICSID Case No. ARB/08/6 (Decision, 12 September 2014), is one of a number of investor-state disputes to arise from the Ecuadoran government’s policies on the so-called “extraordinary income” of oil companies operating in its territory in the mid to late 2000s. Keen followers of international arbitration will recall three previous cases concerned with the same issues:

Murphy Exploration & Production Company – International v. Republic of Ecuador, (UNCITRAL, PCA Case No. AA434 / ICSID Case No. ARB/08/4), which is now proceeding in an UNCITRAL arbitration after the ICSID proceedings were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction;
Re [...]

Are Anti-Suit Injunctions Back on the Menu? The AG’s Opinion in Gazprom

On 4 December 2014, the Advocate General (“AG”) of the CJEU handed down an opinion in the Gazprom case (C-536/13) which will surprise. The case concerns the compatibility with EU Regulation 44/2001 (the “Brussels I Regulation”) of an anti-suit award made by an EU seated arbitral tribunal against EU court proceedings elsewhere. In approving this, the AG has, however, also opined that the CJEU’s decision in West Tankers (C-185/07) is now to be regarded as incorrect and that intra-EU anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration are generally permissible. The opinion is not binding on the CJEU but looks set to reignite debate.

Gazprom concerns the supply of gas by Gazprom to Lithuan [...]

Third party funding in international arbitration – lessons from litigation?

and Paula Gibbs, Chapman Tripp

Introduction
The spotlight continues to shine on third party funding in international arbitration, following the recent Alemanni decision and unsuccessful disqualification proposal filed against Dr Gavan Griffith QC in the RSM v St Lucia ICSID arbitration (reported on in this blog by Carlos Gonzalez-Bueno and Laura Lozano).

A similar spotlight shines also in domestic litigation. For instance, the English High Court in Excalibur Ventures LLC v Gulf Keystone [2014] EWHC 3436 (Comm) recently ordered third party funders who funded “a hopeless case” to pay the winning side’s costs on an indemnity basis.

This blog briefly explores whether international arbitr [...]

Consent in Multiparty Investment Arbitration – The Most Recent Installment

On November 17, 2014, the tribunal in Alemanni v. Argentine Republic issued its long-anticipated decision on jurisdiction and admissibility. Alemanni is the third in a series of large-scale arbitrations arising out of Argentina’s default on its sovereign debt, and the most recent decision bears some resemblance to the preliminary awards rendered in the other two matters (Abaclat v. Argentine Republic and Ambiente Ufficio v. Argentine Republic). However, Alemanni puts its own distinctive stamp on the question of mass and multiparty claims in the investment context.

The facts in Alemanni are substantially similar to those in Abaclat and Ambiente Ufficio and therefore need not be discus [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...