Arbitration Act 1996

Some arbitration agreements require arbitrators to be chosen and appointed by the parties. But how do you actually go about appointing them? This practice note provides practical guidance on the steps that must be taken when appointing an arbitrator, including the first approach to a potential arbitrator and confirmation of appointment.

This is an example claim form for a freezing injunction in support of an arbitration. Click here to view it.

This is an example witness statement for a freezing injunction in support of an arbitration. Click here to view it.

This article explains the current legal status of the anti-suit injunction in the EU, and analyses a recent decision by the House of Lords on its application to arbitration.

The Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill had its first reading in the House of Lords on 10 May 2012. The Bill proposes amendments to various statutes, including the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Equality Act 2010, regarding the application of equality legislation to arbitration and mediation services.

PLC Arbitration has published a practice note on extending time for commencing arbitration.

PLC Arbitration has published three draft orders, with an accompanying drafting note, on challenging arbitration awards in the English courts under sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996. (Free access.)

An update on the Civil Procedure Rule Committee's proposals to amend Practice Direction 62 (Applications for permission to appeal under section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996).

On 4 September 2008, Advocate General Kokott delivered her opinion that anti-suit injunctions against proceedings in another member state brought in breach of an arbitration agreement are incompatible with EC law.

These are drafting notes to accompany the example draft order for a freezing injunction in support of an arbitration.

In Beijing Jianlong Heavy Industry Group v Golden Ocean Group and others [2013] EWHC 1063 (Comm), the Commercial Court considered the validity of the arbitration clauses contained in guarantees that were unenforceable for illegality.

In Petrochemical Industries Company (KSC) v The Dow Chemical Company [2012] EWHC 2739 (Comm), the court gave guidance on applications to review arbitral awards on the basis of serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In Nestor Maritime SA v Sea Anchor Shipping Co Ltd [2012] EWHC 996 (Comm), Eder J considered an application for an extension of time to challenge an award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In B v S [2011] EWHC 691 (Comm), Flaux J considered whether the FOSFA Scott v Avery clause excludes the right of the parties to apply to the English court for injunctive relief pursuant to section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In Noble Denton Middle East and another v Noble Denton International Ltd [2010] EWHC 2574 (Comm), the High Court considered the standard of proof required in an application for the appointment of an arbitrator under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In Broda Agro Trade (Cyprus) Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH [2010] EWCA Civ 1100, the Court of Appeal upheld the judge's decision on the scope of section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

An update on Chalbury McCouat International Ltd v PG Foils Ltd [2010] EWHC 2050 (TCC), in which the court considered under section 2(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996 whether, by reason of a connection with England and Wales, it was appropriate to exercise its powers under section 18 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In Braes of Doune Wind Farm (Scotland) Ltd v Alfred McAlpine Business Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 426 (TCC), Akenhead J considered an arbitration clause which stated expressly that the seat of any arbitration was "Glasgow, Scotland", but which also selected the English Arbitration Act 1996 (which does not apply in Scotland) as the applicable procedural law. He held that, on a proper construction of the contract as a whole, the juridical seat of the arbitration was England, and that Scotland had been selected as the location of any hearing. It followed that the English court had jurisdiction to entertain an application for leave to appeal brought pursuant to the English Arbitration Act. Although the dispute resolution provisions considered in the present case were unusual, Akenhead J's judgment is of interest because it confirms that, while a choice of seat will usually dictate a corresponding choice of procedural law, the converse is also true. His judgment also contains some interesting comments on the approach which a judge will take to the issue of whether an arbitrator's decision is "obviously" wrong for the purposes of any appeal.