1 PCA Case No IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG AND THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENTS, SIGNED 15 SEPTEMBER 1993 (THE TREATY ) - and- THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW RULES OF ARBITRATION 2010 ( UNCITRAL RULES ) -between- PHILIP MORRIS ASIA LIMITED ( Claimant ) -and- THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA ( Respondent, and together with the Claimant, the Parties ) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 3 Regarding the Date: 26 October 2012 Arbitral Tribunal Professor Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel (President) Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler Professor Donald M. McRae Registry Permanent Court of Arbitration
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE PARTIES REQUESTS...1 II. III. IV. BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE...1 PROCEDURAL HISTORY...1 SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE PLACE OF ARBITRATION The Claimant s Position The Respondent s Position...7 V. THE TRIBUNAL S CONSIDERATIONS...9 VI. DECISION...10 i
3 Page 1 of 10 I. THE PARTIES REQUESTS 1. The Claimant requests the Tribunal to order that Singapore be the place of arbitration The Respondent requests the Tribunal to order that London, United Kingdom be the place of arbitration. 2 II. BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE 3. According to the Notice of Arbitration, the dispute arises from the enactment and enforcement by the Respondent of the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and the effect it has on investments in Australia owned or controlled by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges, inter alia, that [t]he plain packaging legislation bars the use of intellectual property on tobacco products and packaging, transforming [the Claimant s wholly owned subsidiary] from a manufacturer of branded products to a manufacturer of commoditized products with the consequential effect of substantially diminishing the value of [the Claimant s] investments in Australia The Claimant seeks declaratory and compensatory relief. In particular, the Claimant seeks an order that the Respondent (i) take appropriate steps to suspend enforcement of plain packaging legislation and to compensate [the Claimant] for loss suffered through compliance with plain packaging legislation; or (ii) compensate [the Claimant] for loss suffered as a result of the enactment and continued application of plain packaging legislation. 4 The amount in dispute is described in the Notice of Arbitration as an amount to be quantified but of the order of billions of Australian dollars. 5 III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 5. In the Notice of Claim dated 22 June 2011 and the Notice of Arbitration, the Claimant proposed Singapore as the place of arbitration Claimant s Notice of Claim, 3; Claimant s Notice of Arbitration, 9.2; Claimant s Submission as to: A. Procedure to be Adopted to Determine Bifurcation and B. Seat of Arbitration dated 30 July 2012 ( Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012 ), 39; Claimant s Reply Submissions as to Seat of the Arbitration dated 27 August 2012 ( Claimant s Submission dated 27 August 2012 ), 2. Respondent s letter to the Tribunal dated 26 July 2012, 1; Respondent s Submission on the Place of Arbitration dated 17 August 2012 ( Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012 ), 14; Respondent s letter to the Tribunal dated 3 September 2012, 3. Claimant s Notice of Arbitration, 1.5. Claimant s Notice of Arbitration, 1.7. Claimant s Notice of Arbitration, 8.3. Claimant s Notice of Claim, 3; Claimant s Notice of Arbitration, 9.2.
4 Page 2 of By letter dated 7 June 2012, the Tribunal enclosed a draft annotated agenda and invited the Parties to submit any comments on the Agenda including an agenda item concerning the place of arbitration by 25 June By letter dated 25 June 2012, the Claimant informed the Tribunal that [d]iscussions between the Parties are ongoing, and each of the Parties anticipates being in a position to inform the Tribunal on 27 June 2012 of the areas in relation to which they have reached agreement and those areas of difference that may require resolution by the Tribunal. 8. By their respective letters dated 27 June 2012, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that it was still considering its position regarding the place of arbitration, and the Claimant notified the Tribunal that it had requested the Respondent to clarify its position in this respect by 16 July By letter dated 26 July 2012, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that it had proposed to the Claimant that London be the place of the arbitration, but that the Claimant had indicated that it maintained its position that Singapore be the place of the arbitration. 10. On 30 July 2012, the Tribunal held a First Procedural Meeting in Singapore. Present at the Meeting were: The Tribunal: Professor Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler Professor Donald M. McRae For the Claimant: Mr. Joe Smouha QC Mr. David Williams QC Mr. Simon Foote Mr. Peter O'Donahoo Mr. Ricardo E. Ugarte Mr. Marc Firestone Mr. John Fraser For the Respondent: Mr. Stephen Gageler SC Mr. Anthony Payne SC Dr. Chester Brown Mr. Mark Jennings Mr. Simon Daley Mr. Nathan Smyth Mr. Will Story Ms. Rosemary Morris-Castico For the PCA: Mr. Dirk Pulkowski
5 Page 3 of At the First Procedural Meeting, the Parties reiterated their respective proposals for the place of arbitration and presented oral arguments in support of their proposals. 12. On 3 August 2012, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 2 inviting the Parties to make further written submissions on, inter alia, the place of arbitration, and setting out a timetable for such submissions. 13. In accordance with the timetable set out in Procedural Order No. 2, on 13 August 2012 the Claimant filed its submission on the place of arbitration, on 17 August 2012 the Respondent submitted its reply on the place of arbitration, on 27 August 2012 the Claimant submitted its comments on the Respondent s reply submission on the place of arbitration, and on 3 September 2012, the Respondent filed its reply on the Claimant s submission of 27 August IV. SUMMARY OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES REGARDING THE PLACE OF ARBITRATION 1. The Claimant s Position 14. The Claimant proposes that Singapore be designated as the place of arbitration. The Claimant points to Article 18(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules, which states that if the parties have not agreed on the place of arbitration, the Tribunal will determine the place of arbitration having regard to the circumstances of the case, submitting that the phrase circumstances of the case is of the widest import. 7 The Claimant relies on the 1996 UNCITRAL Notes on Organising Arbitral Proceedings as well as Ethyl Corporation v. Canada to set out five relevant factors in deciding on the seat of arbitration and examines how Singapore satisfies each of these factors. 8 The five factors are: (a) the suitability of the law on arbitration of the place of arbitration, (b) whether there is a multilateral or bilateral treaty on enforcement of arbitral awards between the State where the arbitration takes place and the State where the award may have to be enforced, (c) convenience of the parties and the arbitrators, including the travel distances, (d) availability and the cost of support services needed, and (e) location of the subject matter in dispute and proximity of the evidence Regarding the suitability of the arbitration law of the place of arbitration, the Claimant submits that the International Arbitration Act 1994 as revised in 2010 ( IAA ), which governs Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 36. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 37; First Procedural Meeting Transcript, 30 July 2012 ( Transcript ) p. 9:3-12, citing Ethyl Corporation v. Canada, Decision on the, 28 November 1997, 7 ICSID Reports ( Ethyl ). Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 37.
6 Page 4 of 10 international arbitration in Singapore, is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 ( UNCITRAL Model Law ) with certain useful modifications. 10 The Claimant notes that, since the establishment of Maxwell Chambers, Singapore has hosted investment treaty cases, citing the ICSID arbitration Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka The Claimant counters the Respondent s submission that London is a well-established seat of investor-state arbitration with a judicial system experienced in such matters arguing that, while London is a leading seat for international commercial arbitrations, London is not more prominent than Paris, The Hague, or Stockholm when it comes to investment treaty arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Rules. 12 The Claimant notes that it is only aware of three investment treaty cases that have come before the courts of England; there is thus no body of jurisprudence that would make English courts superior to Singapore courts in terms of experience. 13 The Claimant takes issue with the impression that the historical experience of English courts in commercial matters makes them qualified to oversee the present proceedings. 14 The Claimant notes that in the Ethyl case, when looking at the suitability of places in the United States or Canada as a seat for the arbitration, the tribunal held that the fact that New York arbitral law has been in place longer than Canada s Commercial Arbitration Act and was therefore more judicially elaborated did not affect the comparative suitability of both laws In any event, the Claimant submits that, to the extent that English case law on investment treaty arbitrations is relevant, the Singapore courts can use that jurisprudence, and that the Singapore courts treat English cases as highly persuasive authority. 16 According to the Claimant, in the field of arbitration there is an underlying unity between English arbitration law and Singapore arbitration law. 17 The Claimant cites the Singapore Court of Appeal which stated that since the IAA incorporates provisions from the English Arbitration Act and since both acts are based on Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 40. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 40, citing Deutsche Bank AG v. Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (ICSID Case No. ARB/09/02), Hearing on Jurisdiction and Merits, Singapore, 25 August 2011 to 5 September 2011 ( Deutsche Bank ). Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, at 41; Transcript, p.10: Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 41; Transcript, pp. 11:1-12:7. Transcript, pp. 12:14-13:20. Transcript, p. 13:3-20; Claimant s Supplementary Submissions as to Seat of Arbitration dated 13 August 2012 ( Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012 ), 5, citing Ethyl, p. 5. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 42; Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 6. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 42, citing Merkin & Hjalmarsson, Singapore Arbitration Legislation Annotated (2009) pp. 2-3.
7 Page 5 of 10 the UNCITRAL Model Law, the legislative background to the English Act is of some relevance to understand the taxonomy of the IAA The Claimant further alleges that the Singapore judiciary is highly regarded and has demonstrated minimal intervention and a supportive attitude towards arbitration, citing a passage from the Singapore Court of Appeal in Tjong Very Sumito v. Antig Investments. 19 The Claimant notes that, since 2004, arbitration judges have been specifically designated in the Singapore High Court to deal with any applications under the IAA, and that the quality of the jurisprudence which emanates from those three judges is of the highest order As to the second relevant factor in deciding on the place of arbitration, the Claimant notes that the IAA gives effect to the 1958 New York Convention Regarding the third factor, the Claimant submits that Singapore is more convenient than London for the parties to travel to since PM Asia is based in Hong Kong, its wholly owned subsidiary Philip Morris Limited ( PML ) and its executives are in Australia, and most of counsel from both sides are based in either Australia or New Zealand (with some counsel holding offices within Maxwell Chambers in Singapore). 22 The Claimant concedes that London is closer for the arbitrators but argues that Singapore is hardly remote in terms of international flights In relation to the fourth factor, the Claimant contends that Singapore has established itself as a modern and cost-efficient arbitration centre, with the costs of hotel accommodation and other facilities lower than in London. 24 The Claimant further notes that there is a Host Country Agreement between the PCA and Singapore, which allows the Parties to secure a hearing venue at no charge, which is not the case with London Regarding the fifth and last factor, the Claimant submits that the subject matter of the dispute is in Australia and that a number of the Claimant s witnesses are in the Asia-Pacific Region which militates in favour of Singapore. 26 The Claimant notes that a further factor discussed in leading Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 42, citing Ng Chin Siau and others v. How Kim Chuan  SGCA 46, p. 38; Transcript, pp.13:21-14:20. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 43; Transcript, pp.15:8-16:10. Transcript, p. 16: Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 40, 44; Transcript, p.10:4-6. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 48. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 51. Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012,
8 Page 6 of 10 text books on international arbitration is the neutrality of the venue, and submits that Singapore is a neutral venue as between the Parties Moreover, the Claimant contends that the amendment to Singapore s Legal Profession Act of 1 April 2012 has relaxed the criteria for ad hoc admission of Queen s Counsel and equivalent ranks from other jurisdictions before the Singapore courts, and that counsel must demonstrate only special qualifications or experience for the purpose of the case to be admitted. 28 The Claimant submits that it is highly likely, if not certain, that Queen s Counsel or Senior Counsel for the Respondent (and the Claimant) in this arbitration will meet this criterion and be granted ad hoc admission if necessary. 29 The Claimant concedes that junior counsel cannot be admitted to Singapore courts but argues that it would be surprising and inappropriate for the choice of seat to be informed or determined by the Respondent s decision as to whom it retains as junior counsel, noting that it cannot be the primary consideration, let alone the key consideration Furthermore, the Claimant points out that two of the Respondent s senior counsel and two of the Respondent s three junior counsel are not admitted to practice in England and Wales and therefore choosing London would not allay the concern regarding professional admission for all counsel at the place of arbitration. 31 In any event, the Claimant alleges that counsel for a party may change for a number of reasons The Claimant further submits that possible recourse to Singapore courts under the IAA is limited and therefore the issue of the Parties representation and the experience of the courts may not arise at all. 33 In addition, the Claimant contends that the Respondent can be ably represented in Singapore courts by its senior counsel and that it would not be an unreasonable burden in an arbitration of this importance for the Respondent to retain further counsel experienced in investment arbitration who can appear in Singapore court. 34 Finally, the Claimant notes that there is nothing that prevents the Respondent s junior counsel from being physically present in Singapore courts, since court hearings conducted not in open court would exclude the general public but not the party s representatives such as solicitors and Claimant s Submission dated 30 July 2012, 54. Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 9; Transcript, p. 17:1-17 Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 9. Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 10; Claimant s Submission dated 27 August 2012, 4. Claimant s Submission dated 27 August 2012, 5-6. Claimant s Submission dated 27 August 2012, 8. Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 10. Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 10.
9 Page 7 of 10 junior counsel. 35 In any event, the Claimant contends that the ability of junior counsel to appear in proceedings in the Singapore courts is a matter of little comparative weight when assessing the other factors weighing in favour of Singapore as otherwise the obvious choice as seat for an Asia-Pacific arbitration The Respondent s Position 26. The Respondent proposes London as the place of arbitration The Respondent alleges that there is no material difference between the applicable law in Singapore and in London and that its preference for London is a marginal preference and is based on two overlapping considerations. 38 According to the Respondent, the first consideration is that English courts have some experience in dealing with investment treaty arbitration and that the Singapore courts have none. 39 The Respondent notes that it is only aware of one investment treaty arbitration seated in Singapore, that of White Industries Australia Ltd v. The Republic of India, and that there was no involvement of the Singapore courts in that case. 40 The Respondent further notes that Deutsche Bank, the case cited by the Claimant as an example of an arbitration taking place in Singapore, was an ICSID case and therefore the Singapore courts had no possibility of entertaining an application in respect of any claim arising from that arbitration The Respondent submits that the Claimant s list of cases related to investment treaty arbitrations before English courts is incomplete, asserting that applications related to a further two investment treaty arbitrations have come before the English courts, bringing the total number of cases to five. 42 The Respondent claims that only the Swedish courts have been seized of more matters in connection with investment treaty arbitrations, with six applications. 43 The Respondent disputes the relevance of the Claimant s reliance on Ethyl, submitting that in that case the tribunal was considering the suitability of the arbitral procedure at the place of arbitration rather than the experience of courts with investment treaty arbitration Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 10; Claimant s Submission dated 27 August 2012, 8. Claimant s Submission dated 13 August 2012, 10. Respondent s letter to the Tribunal dated 26 July 2012, 1. Transcript, p. 20:1-7. Transcript, p. 20:9-20. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 3, citing White Industries Australia Ltd v. The Republic of India (Award of 30 November 2011). Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 3. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 4. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 4. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 5.
10 Page 8 of The Respondent contends that the second consideration pointing to London as the place of arbitration is stronger than the first, which is that counsel retained by the Respondent are admitted to practice in England and are not admitted to practice in Singapore. 45 The Respondent argues that [t]here is a distinct efficiency in terms of cost and continuity of representation in having the seat of arbitration in a place where counsel retained in the arbitration have a right to practise and have familiarity with the system of practice. 46 The Respondent points out that according to its understanding only senior counsel can be admitted to practice in Singapore on an ad hoc basis and that two members of its team are junior counsel admitted to practice in England The Respondent counters the Claimant s points on the issue of the Respondent s counsel being able to appear in Singapore courts, finding them unconvincing. 48 First, the Respondent alleges that if there are no hearings in Singapore courts then there are likely not to be any in English courts either, meaning that the factor is neutral in deciding the seat of arbitration. 49 Secondly, for the Respondent to hire additional counsel would be a further expense that would not be necessary if London were selected as the seat of arbitration. To appear in Singapore, the Respondent would have to apply for ad hoc admission for its senior counsel and engage a law firm in Singapore to instruct counsel, which is not efficient or cost-effective. 50 The Respondent further casts doubt as to whether junior counsel can be physically present in proceedings in Singapore court, pointing to section 22 of the IAA, which provides that proceedings under the IAA are to be heard otherwise than in open court. 51 The Respondent also submits that the alleged combined effect of Order 69A, Rule 3(2) and Order 28, Rules 1-2 of the Singapore Rules of Court is that any application under sections 12A or 22 of the IAA would be heard in Chambers As to the submissions made by the Claimant on the relative convenience, cost and availability of first-class facilities in Singapore, the Respondent contends that these are only relevant to the issue of where the hearing will be held, which both Parties accept may be Singapore. 53 As for Transcript, p. 20: Transcript, p. 21:1-6; Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 6. Transcript, p. 21:7-19. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 7-9. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 9. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 9. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 9. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 12.
11 Page 9 of 10 the factors of neutrality and the relative connection to a dispute centred in Australia, the Respondent argues that these militate equally in favour of either London or Singapore Finally, the Respondent notes that the Claimant has not advanced any reason why London would not be a suitable place of arbitration. 55 V. THE TRIBUNAL S CONSIDERATIONS 33. The Parties extensive submissions regarding the place of arbitration have been very helpful. All of them have been taken into account by the Tribunal. In view of the above summaries of the Parties contentions, the Tribunal hereafter will only focus on those arguments and considerations which it considers as determinative for its decision on the place of arbitration. 34. In view of the geographical location of both Parties, it was discussed and agreed at the Procedural Meeting in Singapore that, for convenience, hearings and other meetings with the Parties should normally be held in Singapore. But, as is undisputed, this does not exclude that the legal place or seat of arbitration can be elsewhere. 35. Art. 18(1) UNCITRAL Rules provides that, without the respective agreement of the Parties, the Arbitral Tribunal shall determine the place of arbitration having regard to the circumstances of the case. 36. The Parties have indeed listed all circumstances which could be considered relevant in the present case and the Tribunal need not repeat all of them. The Tribunal agrees with Respondent that the preferences expressed for either Singapore or London are marginal and overlapping. 37. While the Tribunal is aware of the criteria taken into account regarding the place of arbitration in the Ethyl decision, it is also aware that this was a NAFTA arbitration where a place had to be chosen in one of the NAFTA States, and also that some of the five factors considered relevant in that decision could be accommodated for this case as long as the factual site of hearings and meetings with the Parties is Singapore, as has already been agreed. 38. Regarding the suitability of the law, both Singapore and London fulfil the requirements of a place for a BIT arbitration. The arbitration law as well as the judiciary, should it become involved, are well equipped in both States to deal with the present dispute. The considerations discussed by the Parties regarding the possibility of counsel to appear before the respective courts do not, in the view of the Tribunal, reveal relevant differences between the two places Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 12. Respondent s Submission dated 17 August 2012, 13.
12 Page 10 of Therefore, the question is whether some other considerations speak in favour of one of the two places. While the Tribunal agrees with Respondent that factors of neutrality militate equally in favour of either London or Singapore, the second factor mentioned by Respondent in that context, i.e. the relative connection to a dispute centred in Australia does not do so in the view of the Tribunal, at least if the other Party to the dispute is from Asia. Indeed, if the Parties cannot agree, the choice of a place of arbitration in Europe for a dispute between two Parties in Asia and Australia could be seen as implying that no suitable place is available in that region of the world. Both Parties agree that Singapore is such a suitable place, though the Respondent expresses a marginal preference for London. In such circumstances (Art. 18(1) UNCITRAL Rules), the Tribunal feels that the choice of Singapore is the more natural and logical one. 40. Some further considerations would seem to confirm this preference. Of the factors listed in the Ethyl decision, the location of the subject matter in dispute and proximity of evidence, as well as convenience and travel distances of the parties and costs of support services needed would seem to speak in favour of Singapore over London, as they may not only be relevant for hearings of this Tribunal, but also for subsequent disputes before the domestic courts at the place of arbitration should such disputes arise. Finally, the PCA, which is administering the present arbitration, has concluded a Host Country Agreement with Singapore, but not with the UK or an institution in London. 41. For all of the above considerations, the Tribunal concludes that Singapore, rather than London, shall be the place of arbitration. VI. DECISION In accordance with Art. 18(1) of the UNCITRAL Rules, the Tribunal decides that Singapore is the place of arbitration for the present proceedings. Dated, 26 October 2012 On behalf of the Tribunal Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel President of the Tribunal
The London 2016 International and Commercial Law Conference Is Commercial Arbitration the Future of Commercial Justice? Intervention by the Rt Hon Lady Justice Arden DBE June 2016 The arbitration world
Speech by Mr Frank Poon, JP Solicitor General of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Hong Kong to India Road Show February 2013 Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, It is a great pleasure
PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION OPTIONAL RULES FOR ARBITRATING DISPUTES BETWEEN TWO STATES 39 OPTIONAL ARBITRATION RULES TWO STATES CONTENTS Introduction 43 Section I. Introductory Rules 45 Scope of Application
Speech by Mr Rimsky Yuen, SC, Secretary for Justice of the Hong Kong SAR at the Seminar on Legal and Dispute Resolution: Key for International Trade on 17 September 2015 in Jakarta, Indonesia Dr. (Cita)
22 00 11 33 Administered Arbitration Rules HONG KONG INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE ADMINISTERED ARBITRATION RULES Introduction These Rules have been adopted by the Council of the Hong Kong International
Latham & Watkins International Arbitration Practice Number 1563 July 29, 2013 Investment Treaty Arbitration: A Primer International investors enjoy varying degrees of protection and opportunities to seek
S L S THE SOCIETY OF LEGAL SCHOLARS From The Honorary Secretary Professor Nick Wikeley, M.A. (Cantab.), Barrister, John Wilson Chair in Law Faculty of Law, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton
GUIDE Guide to the Legal System of the Cayman Islands TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface... 2 Introduction...3 The Cayman Islands Constitution... 3 The Governor......3 The Legislature... 3 The Executive...4 Sources
Advice Note An overview of civil proceedings in England Introduction There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and decisions by the courts.
INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES (ICSID) Washington, D.C. Case No. ARB/02/1 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN LG&E ENERGY CORP. LG&E CAPITAL CORP. LG&E INTERNATIONAL, INC. (Claimants)
Jurisdiction Egypt. Arbitration legislation Egypt conceded to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards ( New York Convention ) on 2nd of February 1959, ratified it on
Plan for Growth: Promoting the UK s Legal Services Sector Foreword by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and the Minister for Trade & Investment As Britain s economy emerges from a
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE COURT OF ARBITRATION AT THE POLISH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Chapter I Introductory provisions 1 Court of Arbitration 1. The Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (the
Warning: you must comply with the terms imposed upon you by this order otherwise your case is liable to be struck out or some other sanction imposed. If you cannot comply you are expected to make formal
MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook Introductory note. These are the Model Directions for use in the first Case Management Conference in clinical
Online public consultation on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) European Commission Directorate-General
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ADEL A HAMADI AL TAMIMI V. SULTANATE OF OMAN (ICSID CASE NO. ARB/11/33) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 2 CONCERNING THE CLAIMANT S APPLICATION FOR ACCESS
PCA Case No. 2012-12 IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION BEFORE A TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG AND THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA FOR THE PROMOTION
China Graeme Johnston, Litong Chen, Chris Parker & Steve Kou Herbert Smith LLP Litigation 1 Court system What is the structure of the civil court system? There are four levels of court of general jurisdiction:
APPENDIX 3.13 SCC ARBITRATION RULES OF THE ARBITRATION INSTITUTE OF THE STOCKHOLM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (as from 1 January 2010) Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Article 1 About
Factsheet on Investor-State Dispute Settlement 3 October 2013 1. What is Investor-State Dispute Settlement ('ISDS')? ISDS is a procedural mechanism provided for in international agreements on investment.
Universal Market Integrity Rules Rules & Policies 10.8 Practice and Procedure The practice and procedure governing hearings pursuant to this Part shall be made by a Policy. POLICY 10.8 - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
The Hon Kelly O Dwyer MP Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Small Business Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 20 October 2015 Dear Assistant Treasurer EXTENDING UNFAIR CONTRACT TERM PROTECTIONS TO SMALL
www.lawsociety.org.uk/international Guidance for English and Welsh lawyers on the practice of foreign law in Australia and admission as an Australian legal practitioner October 2015 Table of contents Introduction
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER 11 OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES BETWEEN: MERRILL & RING FORESTRY L.P. CLAIMANT AND THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
386 REGULATIONS FOR THE POSTGRADUATE DIPLOMA IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT (PDipArb) (See also General Regulations) Admission requirements LL75 To be eligible for admission to the
Section 6: Investor-State Dispute Settlement Article X.17: Scope of a Claim to Arbitration 1. Without prejudice to the rights and obligations of the Parties under Chapter [XY](Dispute Settlement), an investor
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA HCVAP 2012/026 IN THE MATTER of an Interlocutory Appeal and IN THE MATTER of Part 62.10 of the Civil Procedure Rules BETWEEN: CHRISTIAN
Bridging the Common Law Civil Law Divide in Arbitration by SIEGFRIED H. ELSING * AND JOHN M. TOWNSEND * * INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION has evolved as a system for resolving disputes among parties from different
PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT JUDGE S CHAMBERS FAMILY COURT PRACTICE NOTE LAWYER FOR THE CHILD: SELECTION, APPOINTMENT AND OTHER MATTERS 1 BACKGROUND 1.1 The terms of this Practice Note have been settled in consultation
RESOLUTION No 2 /2012 INTERNATIONAL CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC The 75th Conference of the International Law Association held in Sofia, Bulgaria, 26 to 30 August 2012: HAVING CONSIDERED
1(7) Second Annual Forum on Commercial & Legal Strategies for Successfully Negotiating Long Term Gas Supply Contracts, 13-14 June 2012, Berlin. The SCC Experience of Gas Disputes: Perspectives from a Leading
This case summary was prepared in the course of research for S Ripinsky with K Williams, Damages in International Investment Law (BIICL, 2008) Case summary Wena Hotels Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt Year
In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff
Position Paper PROVIDING THE LEGAL AND POLICY ENVIRONMENT TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE INFORMAL WORKOUT REGIMES IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION 1. The Asian Bankers Association (ABA) considers robust insolvency and
Case No. D23/96 Profits tax royalties trade mark used in Hong Kong section 15(1)(b) section 70A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Panel: William Turnbull (chairman), Christopher Chan Cheuk and Yu Yui Chiu.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE 2009 CLAIM: No. 52 of 2009 BETWEEN: 1. BB HOLDINGS LIMITED FIRST CLAIMANT/APPLICANT 2. THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED SECOND CLAIMANT/APPLICANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
Insurance claims and losses in Spain. Procedural aspects of the Spanish legal system Further information If you would like further information, please contact a person mentioned below or the person with
Emerging Markets Seminar Series 29 September 2011 Peter Rees QC Jason Yardley Julia Zagonek Dispute Resolution Issues in Emerging Markets Choice of governing law Litigation v. arbitration Enforcement Issues
THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF ARBITRATORS Do Alternative Fee Arrangements Have a Place in International Arbitration? By Ian Meredith and Sarah Aspinall Reprinted from (2006) 72 Arbitration 22 26 Sweet & Maxwell
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL 450 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10017 Telephone (212) 450-4000 Facsimile (212) 450-6501 Benjamin S. Kaminetzky Elliot Moskowitz Daniel J. Schwartz Counsel to the Debtors and
2010 International Arbitration Survey: Choices in International Arbitration International arbitration is a voluntary and consensual process and is widely used for the resolution of international disputes.
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT IMPROVING THE RESOLUTION OF TAX TREATY DISPUTES (Report adopted by the Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 30 January 2007) February 2007 CENTRE FOR TAX
January 1, 2011 Chapter I: General provisions Scope of application Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal of the Bank for International Settlements Article 1 1. These rules (the Rules of Procedure)
WESTLAW INDIA USER GUIDE LOGGING ON - Go to www.westlawindia.com and click the ENTER button to log in - Enter your Username and Password - Enter your Client ID, this can be any characters of your choice
FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (ARBITRATION AND OTHER MEASURES) RULES 2015 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT 1 Table of Contents 1. GENERAL OUTLINE 4 Schedule 1 Amendments relating to arbitration 4 Schedule 2 Amendments relating
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
FINRA s Dispute Resolution Process 1 What to Expect: FINRA s Dispute Resolution Process It is rare for most firms to find themselves in a dispute with a customer, an employee, or another firm that escalates
Charity Governance in Hong Kong: Some Legal Questions Benny Y. T. TAI Associate Professor Faculty of Law University of Hong Kong Legal Questions Definition of Charity: charitable purposes Political Purpose
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 7 July 1992 * In Case C-370/90, REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
The article was originally published in International Business Lawyer, Volume 21, Number 11, pages 509-512. The International Business Lawyer is published by the Section on Business Law of the International
IN THE EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE AT ARUSHA Taxation Cause No.2 of 2012 (Originating from Appeal No. 1 of 2012) (Appellate Division) PLAXEDA RUGUMBA..APPLICANT VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE REPUBLIC
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER WIPO LIST OF NEUTRALS BIOGRAPHICAL DATA Cecil O.D. BRANSON, Q.C. 886 Walker s Hook Road Salt Spring Island, BC V8K 1B6 Canada Telephone: +1 250 537 2639 Fax: +1 250 357
CONSULTATION RESPONSE BY THOMPSONS SOLICITORS SCOTLAND SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL FOR THE TRANSFER OF SPECIFIED FUNCTIONS OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL TO THE FIRST TIER
SchiedsVZ_2013_001101_1 SchiedsVZ 1 By Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Cologne" Party Autonomy and Case Management Experiences and Suggestions of an Arbitrator 1 I. Introductory Remark The organizers of the DIS
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES INFINITO GOLD LTD. CLAIMANT v. REPUBLIC OF COSTA RICA RESPONDENT ICSID Case No. ARB/14/5 PROCEDURAL ORDER No. 2 Members of the Tribunal: Prof.
Online Copyright Infringement Discussion Paper July 2014 Introduction There are a number of factors that contribute to online copyright infringement in Australia. These factors include the availability
! BRIEFING All Change Repeal of the Statutory Dispute Resolution Procedures in April 2009 Introduction This note examines the effect of the repeal of the statutory disciplinary and grievance procedures,
ARBITRATION UNDER THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE 2010 UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES Between DETROIT INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE COMPANY (on its own behalf and on behalf of its enterprise The Canadian
Resolving IP and Technology Disputes Through WIPO ADR Getting back to business Intellectual property (IP) is a central component of today s knowledge economy, and its efficient exploitation is of growing
Assistant Secretary Business Law Branch Attorney-General s Department Robert Garran Offices 3 5 National Circuit BARTON ACT 2600 email@example.com 20 July 2012 Dear Assistant Secretary, IMPROVING AUSTRALIA
7.9. The likely running order Assuming both parties are going to give evidence, the trial is likely to proceed along the following lines: claimant opens and gives their evidence claimant s witnesses give
I n t e r n at i o n a l B a r A s s o c i at i o n C o n f e r e n c e Maritime and Transport Law Committee Scholarship The International Bar Association s Legal Practice Division s sections offer a fund
Expert Witnesses in the Federal Courts A Discussion Paper of the Federal Courts Rules Committee on Expert Witnesses Background The role of the expert witness is to assist the court through the provision
LEGAL SCHEME REGULATIONS These Regulations came into force on 1 July 2014. 1 Introduction 1.1 These Regulations govern the Union s legal Scheme. The Rules of the Union set out your other rights and entitlements.
Means for the Settlement of Commercial & Investment Disputes In the light of the International Treaties and Conventions By Prof. Dr. Mohyedin Al-Kaissi Although the 1983 Lebanese Code of Civil Procedure
UNCITRAL UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010) UNITED NATIONS Further information may be obtained from: UNCITRAL secretariat, Vienna International
Dated 20 ICE CLEAR EUROPE LIMITED - and - COMPANY NAME SPONSOR AGREEMENT LNDOCS01/795343.7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Clause Page PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT... 3 1. INTERPRETATION... 3 2. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY...
UNCITRAL UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration UNITED NATIONS Further information may be obtained from: UNCITRAL
Eastern Caribbean Central Bank 2010 OECS Essay Competition Karishma Dhera Montserrat Secondary School Montserrat TOPIC The Caribbean Court of Justice is a necessary institution for Caribbean Independence.
NSW COURT OF APPEAL DECISION SUPPORTS LITIGATION FUNDING MARKET Introduction 1. The New South Wales Court of Appeal, in a unanimous Judgment on Thursday 31 March 2005, sent some clear messages to legal
Expert Witness Training Course In resolving construction or engineering disputes, it usually involves complicated technical issues. The general practice is that the court or arbitral tribunal, and/or parties
Note: Current to March 19, 2015 Arizona Unauthorized Practice of Law & Who may practice as an attorney: (NOTE: Arizona does not have an Unauthorized Practice of Law Statute. The Unauthorized Practice of
Tribunals b Judiciary PRACTICE DIRECTIONS IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM CHAMBERS OF THE FIRST- TIER TRIBUNAL AND THE UPPER TRIBUNAL Contents PART 1 PRELIMINARY 1 Interpretation, etc. PART 2 PRACTICE DIRECTIONS
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL AND EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL WORK TREATED AS ANNEXED TO THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLICITOR AND COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT EMPLOYMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CAROSELLA & FERRY, P.C., Plaintiff, v. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 00-2344 Memorandum and Order YOHN,
Western Australia Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 Workers Compensation (Legal Practitioners and Registered Agents) Costs Determination 2014 As at 28 Feb 2014 Version 00-a0-01 Western
Responses submitted by: Name: Roddy Bourke Law Firm/Company: McCann FitzGerald Location: Dublin, Ireland 1. Would your jurisdiction be described as a common law or civil code jurisdiction? The Republic
Ók~íáçå~äpìêîÉóÓ oééçêíçåíüééêçäçåçäéö~äïçêâçñáåçáîáçì~ä ^ìëíê~äá~å_~êêáëíéêë kçîéãäéêommu ^éééåçáñs oéëéçåëéëíçëìêîéóèìéëíáçåëókçêíüéêåqéêêáíçêó National Pro Bono Resource Centre The Law Building, University
Notice: This slip opinion has not been certified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court for publication in the permanent law reports. Until certified, it is subject to revision or withdrawal. In any event of