February 2012
David Toscano considers the impact of the new arbitration rules issued by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in January 2012.
February 2012
David Toscano considers the impact of the new arbitration rules issued by the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in January 2012.
November 2011
In this presentation, David Toscano looks at the main tools available for enforcement of domestic and international awards and decisions, including adjudication, arbitration and Dispute Adjudication Boards. It considers the operation of the New York Convention for enforcement internationally and the use of tools such as charging and third party debt orders, freezing injunctions and Worldwide Freezing Orders.
November 2011
As Stefan Cucos discusses, prior to March 2011 expert professionals enjoyed a partial immunity from negligence actions in circumstances where they were acting as expert witnesses. The case of Jones v Kaney means that if an expert provides negligent expert evidence that expert can be sued those instructing him. Whilst time will tell as to the full impact of this change, Stefan considers the implications of this decision not only for established experts but also the litigants on whose behalf they act.
October 2011
A costs management pilot scheme will be operating in the Technology and Construction Court (the “TCC”) (together with the Mercantile Courts) from 1 October 2011 to 30 September 2012. The pilot is an extension of an earlier voluntary pilot that was run in the Birmingham TCC during 2009 and arises out of Lord Justice Jackson’s civil litigation costs review. Nicholas Gould, a partner here at Fenwick Elliott will (in his capacity as a Senior Visiting Lecturer at King’s College, London) be monitoring the effectiveness of the pilot and is currently in the process of producing questionnaires for solicitors and Judges involved in the pilot.
October 2011
Frederic Gillion, in an article published in the October 2011 issue of International Construction Law Review, reviews the decision of the Court of Appeal of Singapore CRW Joint Operation v. PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK [2011] SGCA 33 and also the previous decision from the High Court of Singapore relating to the enforcement of a DAB decision by a final arbitral award. These decisions are good reminders to those involved with FIDIC contracts that the enforcement of DAB decisions is not a simple matter and that a number of jurisdictional pitfalls exist which may prevent a winning party from obtaining in arbitration the amounts awarded by the DAB. The present article examines what these pitfalls are in light of the decisions of both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Singapore and also highlights some of the options which may be open to a winning party who wishes to have a DAB decision enforced by an arbitral award.
22 April 2010
Toby Randle in a paper given at the latest Fenwick Elliott Construction Law Update Seminar held at Simpsons in the Strand, London reviews the alternatives to adjudication, in particular the use of Part 8 Proceedings. In doing so, he discusses the recent cases of Geoffrey Osbourne Ltd v Atkins Rail Ltd, Yuanda (UK) Co Ltd v Gear Construction Ltd and Banner Holdings Ltd v Colchester Borough Council.
| Jeremy Glover Tel: +44 (0)20 7421 1986 jglover [at] fenwickelliott [dot] com (Email Jeremy) |
