• Search

Ideas and analysis

Tips for those seeking third-party funding

Tips for those seeking third-party funding

19 August 2019

Charlie Lightfoot, chair of international arbitration at Jenner & Block, discusses recent developments in the third-party funding market and factors that parties should consider before entering into a funding arrangement.

Hong Kong court grants anti-suit injunction against third party

Hong Kong court grants anti-suit injunction against third party

01 August 2019

Philipp Hanusch and Gillian Lam of Baker McKenzie in Hong Kong consider a recent decision by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance restraining a non-party to an arbitration agreement from pursuing court proceedings in mainland China.

Court appointment of arbitrators under India’s 1996 Act: an overreaching approach?

Court appointment of arbitrators under India’s 1996 Act: an overreaching approach?

09 July 2019

Ila Kapoor and Ritika Sinha, partner and associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co in Delhi, consider the evolving interpretation of section 11 of India’s 1996 Arbitration Act, a controversial provision that has allowed courts to rule on the existence of an arbitration agreement upon being asked to appoint an arbitrator.

England’s long history of support for arbitration

England’s long history of support for arbitration

05 July 2019

Delivering the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ annual Roebuck lecture in London, Stavros Brekoulakis addressed the “unwavering” pro-arbitration policy under English law, which he suggested is not a product of the past 50 years, as is often argued, but in fact dates back centuries. Mercy McBrayer, CIArb research and academic affairs manager, reports.

Human rights in ISDS: where are we now?

Human rights in ISDS: where are we now?

03 July 2019

More than two years ago, the ICSID tribunal in Urbaser v Argentina made significant findings on the role of international human rights law in investment treaty arbitration. Iain Maxwell and Caitlin Eaton of Herbert Smith Freehills in London look at how subsequent tribunals have responded to human rights and environmental considerations.

Mainland Chinese court recognises US judgment

Mainland Chinese court recognises US judgment

20 June 2019

Melody Wang of Fangda Partners reports on the firm’s recent success in persuading a court in mainland China to recognise a commercial judgment made by a US federal court – only the second time this is known to have happened.

GAR Live London Lookback: is international arbitration at home in Big Law?

GAR Live London Lookback: is international arbitration at home in Big Law?

02 May 2019

Are the big global law firms falling out of love with international arbitration? And, if not, then why are international arbitration boutiques forming - and what role might third-party funding play in dictating whether the boutique or larger-firm model flourishes from here on? These questions formed the basis of last year’s GAR Live London Inquisition.

The HKIAC’s Russian permit: a game-changer for Russian M&A disputes?

The HKIAC’s Russian permit: a game-changer for Russian M&A disputes?

01 May 2019

As the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre becomes the first foreign arbitral institution to be licensed to administer cases in Russia, Alexey Yadykin of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in Moscow considers what it could mean for arbitration of Russian M&A disputes.

Achmea and commercial arbitration

Achmea and commercial arbitration

29 April 2019

John Gaffney, senior counsel at Al Tamimi & Company in Abu Dhabi, considers the implications of the Achmea judgment for international commercial arbitrations involving the interpretation or application of EU law.

Why the Swedish court decision in PL Holdings is consistent with Achmea

Why the Swedish court decision in PL Holdings is consistent with Achmea

24 April 2019

Stephen Fietta QC of Fietta in London and Robin Oldenstam of Mannheimer Swartling in Stockholm explain why a recent Swedish court decision upholding two intra-EU BIT awards relied on long-established rules of Swedish arbitration law and was consistent with the Achmea judgment.