header-logo header-logo

01 July 2022
Issue: 7985 / Categories: Legal News , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Arbitration at 25―Pt 2, critiquing jurisdiction challenges

86379
One quarter-century after the Arbitration Act 1996, what’s working and what requires change? In the second part of a series of articles, Ravi Aswani, of 36 Stone, and Valya Georgieva, of Penningtons Manches Cooper, look at the process of challenging an arbitration award on jurisdiction

Some routes of challenge are used more often than others. Aswani and Georgieva focus on the s 67 method, the rehearing option, covering pertinent caselaw as well as criticism from within the arbitration community.

They recount ‘one of the most striking examples of the cost inefficiency of rehearing evidence under s 67’, in which ‘an award of $70m, granted following a week’s evidentiary hearing before the tribunal, was successfully challenged after new documentary and witness evidence was presented to the court, resulting in the court reaching substantially different conclusions than the tribunal’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll