Construction and Engineering Lawyers & Attorneys : K&L Gates Law Firm : Financing, Development, Dispute Resolution, Government Contracting

Cubitt Bldg. & Interiors Ltd. v. Richardson Roofing (Ind.) Ltd., [2008] EWHC 1020 (Queen’s Bench Div., Tech. & Constr. Ct.)

Cubitt, the contractor on a construction project in London, engaged Richardson as sub-contractor.  Under the relevant sub-contract, both parties had a discretion to refer disputes to adjudication.  Richardson completed its works, Cubitt alleged delay and indicated that it intended to deduct liquidated damages from the amount payable to Richardson.  Richardson started arbitration proceedings against the Cubitt.  Cubitt sought a stay of the arbitration so that it could refer the dispute to adjudication.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd. v Nigerian Nat’l Petroleum Corp., 2008 WL 1771454, [2008] EWHC 797 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

IPCO contracted with NNPC to design and build a petroleum export terminal in Nigeria.  A dispute ensued and was arbitrated in Nigeria, subject to the supervision of the Nigerian courts.  IPCO obtained an award in October 2004 (in the sum of approximately US$152 million) and sought an order for its enforcement in England.  At the same time, NNPC brought an appeal against the award.  The English High Court granted an order to IPCO, but adjourned enforcement of the award pending the Nigerian appeal.  Subsequent developments in Nigeria had meant that any appeal against the award now lay some five or ten years in the future.  IPCO applied for a variation of the order adjourning enforcement of the award.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Royal & Sun Alliance Ins. PLC v. BAE Sys. (Operations) Ltd., 2008 WL 924979, [2008] EWHC 743 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

An arbitral award pursuant to the arbitration under LCIA rules of an insurance dispute formed the subject matter of this claim.  Royal & Sun sought to appeal the award to the English court on a point of law.  The defendants argued that s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”) and the terms of the relevant arbitration agreement obliged Royal & Sun to seek the leave of the court.  The question was settled in Royal & Sun’s favour as a pure question of construction involving consideration of the Act, the LCIA rules and the arbitration agreement.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd. v. Petroleos de Venezuela SA, 2008 WL 678144, [2008] EWHC 532 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

In this case, a freezing injunction was set aside, having been granted in support of claims which were the subject of ICC arbitration seated in New York.  The parties were parties to a contract for the exploitation of oil rights, the Claimant being a US corporate and the Defendant the Venezuelan state oil company.  Venezuelan legislation passed in 2007 mandated the “migration” of non-Venezuelan interests in Venezuelan oil to Venezuelan entities, and gave rise to claims under the parties’ contract.  Mobil obtained a worldwide freezing injunction up to a value of $12 billion and Petroleos applied to have the injunction set aside.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd. v. Alfred McAlpine Bus. Servs. Ltd., 2008 WL 678195, [2008] EWHC 426 (Queen’s Bench Div., Tech. & Constr. Ct.)

In this case an agreement to arbitrate selected the Arbitration Act 1996 as the applicable procedural law but stated that the seat of any arbitration was "Glasgow, Scotland," where the Act does not apply.  It was held that, construing the contract as a whole, the arbitration was seated juridically in England, with Glasgow serving as the location of the arbitral hearing.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Forster Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd., 2008 WL 576947, [2008] EWCA Civ 184 (Ct. of App., Civil Div.)

In this case, the Court of Appeal upheld an order permitting the disclosure of documents filed in a London arbitration to the courts of certain overseas jurisdictions in related proceedings.  In the London arbitration Wilson had originally made claims of fraud against the claimant Emmott but had subsequently withdrawn them.  Wilson repeated those allegations in the overseas proceedings to which Emmott was not a party.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By K&L Gates attorneys Peter R. Morton, Ian Meredith, John L. Boos, Joanna A. Diakos.

Arbitration World is an update for clients and contacts on recent development in international arbitration law and practice.

Welcome to the Fifth Edition of Arbitration World, a publication from K&L Gates' Arbitration Group which aims to highlight significant developments and issues in international arbitration for executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

In this edition, in terms of U.S. developments, we look at the growth of "class arbitration" in the U.S. and Canada, review the case law on challenging the scope of submission to an arbitrator in the U.S. and take an early look at an important Supreme Court case regarding the scope for Federal Courts to review arbitral awards as well as the proposed "Arbitration Fairness Act."

We consider two aspects of the continuing development of the ethical framework for arbitrators:  guidelines from the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators on the interviewing of prospective arbitrators and a U.S. Court of Appeal case on the duty to investigate potential conflicts of interest.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Seeley Int’l Pty. Ltd. v. Electra Air Conditioning BV, 2008 WL 276689, [2008] FCA 29 (Fed. Ct. Austl.)

This Australian case illustrates the issues, in that jurisdiction, which can turn on niceties in the drafting of dispute resolution clauses.  Seeley, a distributor of air conditioners sued their manufacturer, Electra, in the Australian Federal Court for breach of contract, seeking a declaration and summary judgment.  Electra sought to restrain the proceedings on the basis of an agreement to arbitrate any issue between the parties before a single arbitrator seated in Melbourne under the IAMA Rules.  However, the relevant clause also provided that nothing in it “prevents a party from seeking injunctive or declaratory relief in the case of a material breach or threatened breach of this Agreement.”

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CTI Group Inc. v. Transclear SA (The Mary Nour), 2007 WL 3001775, [2007] EWHC 2340 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Court)

This case arose out of the non-delivery by the sellers of a quantity of cement.  The sellers had argued that the contract had been frustrated by the actions of the Mexican cement cartel.  The Tribunal held that the contract had been frustrated but, if they were wrong on that, the buyers had a valid claim for damages.  The buyers appealed to the English High Court on the main finding of frustration of contract.  The appeal succeeded, the High Court finding the wrong legal test for frustration had been applied.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pacific Maritime (Asia) Ltd. v. Holystone Overseas Ltd., 2007 WL 2944844, [2007] EWHC 2319 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

Pacific sold an accommodation vessel to Holystone under an agreement which made special provision for the return of a block of accommodation or its equivalent to Pacific.  Under s.44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”), and in advance of commencement of arbitration, Pacific applied for and obtained a freezing order on the grounds of Holystone’s failure to provide a replacement accommodation block.  Arbitration then commenced and Holystone applied for the discharge of the freezing order partly on grounds that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant the relief Pacific wanted.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(1) Starlight Shipping Co. (2) Overseas Marine Enters. Inc. v. (1) Tai Ping Ins. Co. (2) Int’l Econ. & Trading Corp., Wugang Group, 2007 WL 2186944, [2007] EWHC 1893 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

In this case, the owner (Starlight) and the manager of a ship (Overseas) applied for an injunction restraining proceedings brought by the respondent insurer (Tai Ping) in the Maritime Court of Wuhan in China.  Starlight had chartered its vessel subject to an arbitration agreement which was incorporated into a bill of lading to which a sub-charterer (Wugang) had then become a party.  The ship and cargo were lost en route from Brazil to China.  Tai Ping commenced proceedings for recovery of sums paid in indemnification of Wugang.  Starlight and Overseas disputed jurisdiction of the Chinese court on grounds of breach of the arbitration agreement, and sought an injunction in the English Commercial Court in restraint of those proceedings.  Tai Ping and Wugang argued that they were not bound by the arbitration agreement as a matter of Chinese law.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Loon Energy, Inc. v. Integra Mining, 2007 WL 2139992, [2007] EWHC 1876 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

In this case, the court considered the application of s.9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 which requires it to stay its proceedings if the dispute before it is one falling within the scope of an arbitration clause.  Loon sought and obtained specific declarations in relation to oil exploration rights under English law contracts.  In the meantime, Integra launched arbitration in accordance with the terms of a Texas law confidentiality agreement into which the parties had entered prior to concluding the English law contracts.  Loon amended its own claim for relief to include a declaration that the confidentiality agreement had been superseded.  Integra sought to stay Loon’s application under s.9.  Loon countered that at the time it issued its own claims there was no dispute in existence in relation to the confidentiality agreement and that therefore there was no obligation on the court under s.9.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

OAO N. Shipping Co. v. Remolcadores De Marin SL, 2007 WL 2139977, [2007] EWHC 1821 (Queen’s Bench Div., Commercial Ct.)

In this case, buyers of a tug boat had brought a claim for damages for a misrepresentation by the sellers as to the total rated power of the vessel’s engine which had induced the contract.  The sellers argued, inter alia, that the representation, made in the form of a certificate of total rated power, was true, that the buyers had not relied on the representation, and had not shown that the representation was false.  The tribunal held that there had not been a representation by the sellers as to the “truth” of the certificate, but only as to its “authenticity.”  The buyers appealed the award under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”) on the basis that no argument had been heard on the point.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By K&L Gates attorneys Wing L. Cheung, Martha J. Dawson, Ira S. Kaufman, Ian Meredith, Sarah A. Munro, Glenn R. Reichardt, Thomas M. Reiter, Stephen A. Smith, Sarah Turpin and Tiffany Yeung.

Arbitration World highlights the significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

Welcome to the Fourth Edition of "Arbitration World," a publication from K&L Gates' Arbitration Group which aims to highlight significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to executives and in-house counsel with responsibility for dispute resolution.

In this edition we look back at the firm's third annual London International Arbitration Seminar at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Knightsbridge in April and look forward to hosting a similar event in San Francisco on 4-5 October 2007 (details in the Forthcoming Events section on the back page).

We are pleased to include a guest contribution from Petter Tornquist of Setterwalls, the leading Swedish law firm, on the new rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By K&L Gates attorneys Ian Meredith, Michael D. Napoli, Martin J. King, Andrew H. Davies, Douglas J. Simmons, Ben Morgan, Clare Tanner, Brian R. Davidson, Kari M. Horner, Sarah A. Munro and Rachel G. Stephens.

Arbitration World highlights the significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

Welcome to the third edition of "Arbitration World" and the first edition, we are proud to say, following the combination of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP with Preston Gates Ellis LLP, effective 1 January 2007, to form Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP - "K&L Gates."

In light of this development, page 3 of this issue includes a short commentary on arbitration in Asia and a profile of the firm's Asian offices which enable the firm to advise clients in arbitration in this increasingly strategic part of the world.

For those reading for the first time, "Arbitration World" aims to highlight significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Ian Meredith, Linda A. Kent, Peter R. Morton, Kelly D. Talcott, Matthew E. Smith, Clare Tanner, Sarah A. Munro.

Arbitration World, a publication of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, highlights the significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

Welcome to the second edition of "Arbitration World," a publication from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP's Arbitration Group.  "Arbitration World" aims to highlight significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

In this significantly expanded edition:

• We look back at our International Arbitration Seminar held at Claridge’s, London in March this year and look forward to our forthcoming International Arbitration Webinar programme in the Autumn;
• We examine some practical considerations in relation to arbitration clauses in insurance contracts, consider the issue of whether an arbitrator has authority to grant rescission of the contract as a remedy in arbitration and offer some thoughts on ways to deal with the tricky area of arbitration of multiparty disputes with particular reference to the construction sector;

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Thomas E. Birsic, Ian Meredith, Linda A. Kent, Peter R. Morton, Kelly D. Talcott, Matthew E. Smith and Clare Tanner.

Arbitration World highlights the significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

Welcome to the first edition of "Arbitration World," a publication from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP's Arbitration Group.  "Arbitration World" aims to highlight significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

In this issue we will be covering some recent decisions of the European Court of Justice which serve to highlight the benefits of agreements to arbitrate, and some English case law developments including a House of Lords decision re-affirming the English court's noninterventionist approach to arbitration.

We look at the growing importance of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and how they might be used not only in claims by investors against governments of developing nations, but also in claims against Western States.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By Ian Meredith, Linda A. Kent, Peter R. Morton, Kelly D. Talcott, Matthew E. Smith and Clare Tanner.

Arbitration World highlights the significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

Welcome to the first edition of "Arbitration World," a publication from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP's Arbitration Group.  "Arbitration World" aims to highlight significant developments and issues in international arbitration that matter to in-house counsel and company executives with responsibility for dispute resolution.

In this issue we will be covering some recent decisions of the European Court of Justice which serve to highlight the benefits of agreements to arbitrate, and some English case law developments including a House of Lords decision re-affirming the English court's noninterventionist approach to arbitration.

We look at the growing importance of Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) and how they might be used not only in claims by investors against governments of developing nations, but also in claims against Western States.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks