Category: Europe

1
Relevant Factors in Grant of Freezing Injunction in Support of Foreign Arbitration
2
Choice of Seat Dictates Procedural Law
3
Factors Justifying Disclosure of Documents Filed in Arbitration
4
K&L Gates’ Arbitration World, Spring 2008
5
Power of Court to Uphold Arbitral Award on Alternative Grounds
6
Court Intervenes Where Arbitrator Held Not to Have Power to Act Effectively
7
Considerations in Exercise of Court’s Power to Grant Anti-Suit Injunction
8
Existence of Dispute for Purposes of Obtaining Stay of Judicial Proceedings
9
Award Overturned for Serious Irregularity Where Decision Based on Issues Not Argued
10
K&L Gates’ Arbitration World, Summer 2007

Relevant Factors in Grant of Freezing Injunction in Support of Foreign Arbitration

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. Read More

Choice of Seat Dictates Procedural Law

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. Read More

Factors Justifying Disclosure of Documents Filed in Arbitration

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. Read More

K&L Gates’ Arbitration World, Spring 2008

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.

Read More

Power of Court to Uphold Arbitral Award on Alternative Grounds

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.
Read More

Court Intervenes Where Arbitrator Held Not to Have Power to Act Effectively

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. Read More

Considerations in Exercise of Court’s Power to Grant Anti-Suit Injunction

(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. Read More

Existence of Dispute for Purposes of Obtaining Stay of Judicial Proceedings

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. Read More

Award Overturned for Serious Irregularity Where Decision Based on Issues Not Argued

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. Read More

K&L Gates’ Arbitration World, Summer 2007

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.

Read More

Copyright © 2019, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.