Menu
Browse Options
Clyde & Co.

Clyde & Co.

Key Changes in the LCIA’s new Arbitration Rules

The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) has recently adopted a new set of arbitration rules, which will come into effect on 1 October 2014.The new rules aim to ensure an effective, efficient and fair process. The LCIA reports that its new Director General, Dr Jacomijn van Haersolte-van Hof, thanked those who contributed to ‘the meticulous and thoughtful drafting process, which has led to a balanced set of Rules.’ This piece will discuss some of the main changes introduced by the new rules.

Emergency Arbitrator

The new rules provide that in case of emergency, a party can apply for the appointment of a temporary sole arbitrator in advance of the formation of the tribunal. Spec [...]

The Birth of a New UAE Federal Arbitration Law: A Long and Difficult Labour

Enactment of a federal arbitration law has been ‘imminent’ since the United Arab Emirates acceded to the New York Convention in 2006 (the ‘Convention’). Once enacted, it is expected that the federal law will repeal Articles 203 to 218 of Federal Law (11) of 1992, the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC’), which currently govern arbitration in the state.

Several drafts of a proposed federal arbitration law have been released over the years by the Ministry of Economy, the most recent of which was in 2013 (the ‘Draft Law’). This version (as with the majority, but not all, of its predecessors) is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but retains some provisions of the CPC.

Whilst enactment of [...]

The Jurisdiction of Indian Courts over Arbitrations Seated Outside India. An Outsider’s Perspective.

The potential intervention of Indian courts over foreign seated arbitrations is a hot topic in international arbitration. On 28 May 2014, the Supreme Court of India (“SCI”) heated up the debate by handing down a judgment in Reliance Industries Limited & Anr v Union of India. The SCI found that Indian courts had no jurisdiction to set aside an award made in London – which is undoubtedly correct. But can this recent SCI decision be considered a development in Indian arbitration-related case law?

Facts

The disputes between Union of India and Reliance arose from two oil and gas production-sharing contracts. These contracts were governed by Indian substantive law, and provided for UNCITRAL ar [...]

HOW FAR DO THE NEW LCIA GUIDELINES FOR PARTIES’ LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND THE IBA GUIDELINES ON PARTY REPRESENTATION GO?

By Sapna Jhangiani and Khaled Moyeed, Clyde & Co LLP

To the question: What are the professional rules applicable to an Indian lawyer in a Hong Kong arbitration between a Bahraini claimant and a Japanese defendant represented by New York lawyers, the answer is no more obvious than it would be in London, Paris, Geneva and Stockholm. There is no clear answer …

The conundrum identified above by Johnny Veeder QC in the 2001 Goff lecture has remained unanswered for many years. This blog examines two solutions which have recently presented themselves: firstly, proposed amendments to the LCIA Rules – which are expected to be promulgated shortly – such that counsel engaged in LCIA arbitrations [...]

Would Reference to the Decisions of Investment Treaty Tribunals be of Assistance in the Interpretation of Political Risk Insurance Policies?

Readers of this blog are likely to be familiar with the existence of Bilateral Investment Treaties (“BITs”) and the wealth of arbitral awards made publicly available through the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (“ICSID”). Given the publicity afforded to proceedings under BITs, or multilateral investment treaties such as NAFTA, one might be led to believe that recourse to investment treaty arbitration is the sole remedy for a seemingly wronged investor. This is incorrect. While it is true that recompense for a State’s breach of its treaty obligations on account of a failure to provide full protection and security to the investor, or for treatment that was not con [...]

To Forfeit or not to Forfeit? – Enforceability of Forfeiture Clauses in Oil and Gas Joint Operating Agreements (JOA)

By Ben Knowles and Khaled Moyeed at Clyde & Co LLP

A recent arbitration award has highlighted the question of the enforceability of forfeiture provisions in oil and gas JOAs. The effect of such provisions is that a defaulting party forfeits its participating interest (“PI“) in a project on account of a default, such as a failure to pay a cash call. We look at some of the practical considerations for parties to existing JOAs and those entering into new JOAs, as well as their advisers.

Background

In December 2013, an ICC tribunal handed down an award in an arbitration between RSM Production Corporation (“RSM”) as the claimants and Victoria Oil and Gas (“VOG”) and Rodeo Development Limited (“R [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...