Header graphic for print
ARBlog International Arbitration News, Trends and Cases

Tag Archives: Arbitration Act 1996

No “Second bite at the cherry”: English court prevents party raising NY Convention defences to enforcement already decided in other jurisdictions

The recent English High Court decision in Carpatsky Petroleum Corporation v PJSC Ukrnafta [2020] EWHC 769 (Comm) provides useful guidance on the English courts’ approach to determining whether a party is entitled to resist the enforcement of an award on one of the grounds set out in s. 103(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (which implements the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of awards set out in Article V of the 1958 New York Convention), in circumstances where similar issues have already been addressed, or should reasonably have been addressed, in earlier proceedings in other jurisdictions relating to the recognition or enforcement of the award.

Appeals and challenges under the Arbitration Act 1996: Not so appealing anymore?

It is well-recognised that an advantage of London-seated arbitration is the limited grounds on which an arbitration award may be challenged or appealed in the English courts. The three grounds of challenge / appeal under the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”) are: lack of substantive jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (s.67); serious irregularity affecting the tribunal, the proceedings or the award that has caused or will cause substantial injustice to the applicant (s.68); and appeal on a point of law (s.69). The Commercial Court statistics for the court year

Arbitrator bias: should we judge a book by its cover?

This blog post was first published on the Practical Law arbitration blog. Tribunals have a fundamental duty to act fairly and impartially under section 33(1)(a) of the English Arbitration Act (“AA 1996“). Where a party feels an arbitrator is failing in their duty, pursuant to section 24(1)(a) of the AA 1996: “A party to arbitral proceedings may… apply to the court to remove an arbitrator on any of the following grounds – that circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to his impartiality…” English law stipulates a clear,

Legal advice privilege in England and the “closest connection” test

This blog post was first published on the Practical Law arbitration blog. English-seated arbitral tribunals have a great degree of flexibility in determining the applicable rules of privilege. Pursuant to sections 34(1) and 34(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996“): “It shall be for the tribunal to decide all procedural and evidential matters, subject to the right of the parties to agree any matter”, including “whether any and if so which documents or classes of documents should be disclosed between and produced by the parties and at what stage.”

English Court confirms tribunals have jurisdiction to determine disputes involving allegations of criminal conduct

The English High Court has recently confirmed in Interprods Limited v De La Rue International Limited [2014] EWHC 68 (Comm) that, absent a specific statement to the contrary, arbitration clauses confer jurisdiction on arbitral tribunals to determine contractual disputes arising out of alleged criminal conduct. De La Rue had terminated an agency agreement with Interprods following an alleged oral admission by Interprods that payments under the agreement would be used to bribe officials (a criminal offence under the relevant laws). The agency agreement contained an arbitration clause pursuant to which

England: “unmeritorious” challenges to arbitral awards prompt rule change

The Commercial Court has changed its rules on challenging arbitral awards for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in response to what it has described as “the substantial increase in the number of unmeritorious section 68 applications in recent years”. English arbitration law provides for rights of challenge to an arbitral award that go significantly beyond the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award that are permitted in most other jurisdictions.  Section 68 is concerned with procedural failings and not with errors of fact, law or