Arbitration news round-up to 13 January 2016 | Practical Law

Arbitration news round-up to 13 January 2016 | Practical Law

Developments that may be of interest to arbitration practitioners for the week to 13 January 2016.

Arbitration news round-up to 13 January 2016

Practical Law UK Legal Update 2-621-7846 (Approx. 3 pages)

Arbitration news round-up to 13 January 2016

Published on 13 Jan 2016ExpandEngland, International, USA (National/Federal)...Wales
Developments that may be of interest to arbitration practitioners for the week to 13 January 2016.
We report in brief below on other developments that may be of interest to arbitration practitioners:
  • As we previously reported, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to answer the question "whether California's arbitration-only severability rule is preempted by the FAA" (MHN Gov't Servs., Inc. v Zaborowski, 136 S. Ct. 27 (2015)). The petitioner contended that AT&T Mobility LLC v Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011) requires severance when an arbitration agreement contains unconscionable provisions that can be meaningfully severed so that the arbitration agreement can be enforced. On 7 January 2016, the parties advised the Supreme Court that they were in the process of settling the dispute and the court then removed the case from the argument calendar.
  • In Gigsky APS v Vodafone Roaming Services S.A.R.L. (Commercial Court) (16 October 2015), the English Commercial Court decided to continue a without-notice injunction directing Vodafone to reinstate roaming services it had contracted to provide to Gigsky. Among other things, the court held that Gigsky's failure to disclose the existence of the emergency arbitrator facility available under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules (to which the dispute was subject), was not material. Even if it had been material, the judge said he would have exercised his discretion not to discharge the injunction. This was because had Gigsky invoked the procedure, it would have taken at least "11.5 days or so" to obtain an injunction, if required immediately. Therefore, there was no other tribunal empowered to act for the purposes of section 44(5) of the English Arbitration Act 1996.
  • In Mercuria Energy Trading Pte Ltd v Image Mine Products Pvt Ltd [2015] EWHC 2930 (Ch), the English Commercial Court granted an anti-suit injunction restraining the pursuit of court proceedings in India, in breach of an arbitration clause. Andrew Smith J also granted a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to bring arbitration or litigation proceedings in respect of any dispute other than in a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration, in accordance with the arbitration clause.
  • The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL] 2015-16 is due to have its third reading in the UK House of Lords on 19 January 2016, where final amendments can be made. The Bill proposes amendments to various statutes, including the Arbitration Act 1996, regarding the application of equality legislation to arbitration and mediation services.
  • The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and IMPRESS have launched revised CIArb/IMPRESS Arbitration Scheme Rules. First launched in 2014 in response to recommendations in Sir Brian Leveson's November 2012 report, the new rules provide for the resolution of media law disputes involving news publisher defendants in England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland.
  • Berwin Leighton Paisner (BLP) have published their 2015 International Arbitration Survey, which examines the use of tribunal secretaries in international commercial arbitration.
  • The ICSID Convention entered into force in Iraq on 17 December 2015 (see Legal update, Iraq signs and ratifies ICSID Convention).
  • Reportedly, the Myanmar Union Parliament adopted the highly-anticipated new Arbitration Law (Union Law No. 5/2016) on 5 January 2016.