The interphase between the english national arbitation laws

  • 677 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
677
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. ENGLISH NATIONAL ARBITATION LAWS, THE NEW YORK CONVENTION & THE RULES OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITATIOIN: INTERPHASE & APPLICATION Valentine Ataka* TABLE OF CONTENTS0.0 INTRODUCTION ..……………………………………………………………………………………....11.0 PRE-ARBITRATION PROCEDURES…………………………………….……………………….1 1.1 Establishment of „a dispute under the Contract‟..…………………………....…………..1 1.2 Identifying the Dispute Resolution Forum ……………………..………….……………..…….2 1.3Negotiation as required under the Contract …………………………………..………………..2 1.4Initiation of Arbitration ………………………………………………………………………………….. 32.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES DURING ARBITRATION ……………………....………...5 2.1 Appointment of Arbitrators …………………………………………………………………………..5 2.2 Conduct of the Hearing ….…………………………………………………….……..………..…….6 2.3 Confidentiality.. ….……..………………………………………....…………………………..……...7 2.4Application for Interim and Conservatory Orders …………………………………………. 7 2.5Application for Supplementary Orders of Court …………………………………………...83.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES POST-ARBITRATION ……………………………………..….9 3.1Challenging the Award ………………………………………………………………………………......9 3.2 Enforcement ………………………………………………………………………………………………….104.0 CONLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………….11BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………..……………..14*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 0
  • 2. 0.0 INTRODUCTIONThis article discusses the procedural issues that disputants need to take intoaccount where they have subjected their disputes to the jurisdiction of the LondonCourt of Arbitration and have elected London as the seat of their arbitration. Theissues to be considered are:Pre-arbitration procedural issues – what are the procedural requirementsbefore commencement of arbitration in view of the terms and conditions of theContract, the LCIA Rules (the Rules)and the Arbitration Act, 1996 (the Act); andwhat are the relevant issues that the disputants need to address themselves toeven as they embark on these preliminary procedures?Procedural issues during the arbitration - What would be the proceduralimperatives as the arbitration progresses considering the terms of the contract, thesalient features of the dispute, the Rules and the Act?Procedural Issues post arbitration- what are the procedural issues that ABC hasto watch out for in anticipation of the conclusion of the Arbitration?1.0 PRE-ARBITRATION PROCEDURAL ISSUES1.1 Establishment of a ‘dispute under the Contract’The disputants cannot proceed to adjudication unless there is indeed a „dispute‟between them arising from the contract1. A problem presents itself where thecontract does not define what amounts to „a dispute under the contract.‟ However,according to the High Court of England in case of Amec Civil Engineering Ltd vThe Secretary of State for Transport2which concerned the challenge of the1 Always Associates, „Judicial Guidance on the Meaning of Dispute‟, January 2005)http://www.alway-associates.co.uk/legal-update/article.asp?id=71 accessed 4th March 20132 [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC)*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 1
  • 3. jurisdiction of an arbitrator, a dispute comes to be when there was notification andrejection of the claim.1.2 Identifying the Dispute Resolution forumThe Contract will often be explicit on the form of dispute resolution mechanism thatthe parties are to pursue. The Contract may sometimes provide for a multi-tierprocedure in dispute resolution; for example. (i) Informal Negotiations before (ii) An ADR process of choice (iii) Court as default recourse in the event that the above two fail1.3 Negotiation where required under the ContractIn some Contracts there may be an escalating negotiation procedure beforerecourse can be sought in ADR or Courts; for instance (a) Informal Negotiations by parties‟ representatives; failing which (b) Formal Negotiation by nominees of the respective parties3; failing which (c) Executive Negotiation by Managing Directors of the companies.Under English law, such an agreement to negotiate is not enforceable4. This wasthe position held by the Court in Wah (Aka Alan Tang) & Another v Grant3 The nominees of either party are may be predetermined e.g. by an Appendix to theContract or agreed to before negotiations start4 Contrast with the position in the USA and Singapore where the Courts have upheld parties‟pre-arbitration procedural requirements. See the cases of Argentina vs BG Group D.C. Courtof Appeals, No. 1:08-cv-00485 and International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa SystemsAsia Pacific Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 226 in the USA and Singapore respectively*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 2
  • 4. Thornton International Ltd & Others5 where the contract had requiredexecutive negotiation before formal procedures. The High Court (Hildyard J) heldthat such contractual negotiation clauses are „too equivocal ….. and too nebulous in terms of the content of the parties respective obligations to be given legal effect as an enforceable condition precedent to arbitration‟6Disputants should however note that negotiation processes are much simpler,cheaper and more time effective compared to formal ADR processes such asarbitration7. For instance, institutional arbitration greatly limits party autonomy inresolution of disputes8. In such arbitration the parties are bound by the Rules of theinstitution with minimal exceptions.91.4 Initiation of Arbitration1.4.1 Notices of arbitration under the Act5 [2012] EWHC 3198 (Ch)6 Ibid, Paragraph 727 Brown, Henry J. & Marriott, Arthur L., “Choice and timing of Process Use" in, Brown, HenryJ. & Marriott, Arthur L., (eds) ADR Principles and Practice, (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 1999)See also Margaret L Moses, The Principles and Practice of International CommercialArbitration, (Cambridge, 2008) pg4 where she notes that the myth that arbitration is cheapand time saving is fading due to tendency by parties who have „increasingly incorporatedmany litigation tactics into arbitration‟.8 Section 1(b) of the Arbitration Act recognizes this freedom of parties „to agree how theirdisputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest‟9 See the Preamble to the LCIA Rules which provides that „Where any agreement, submissionor reference provides in writing and in whatsoever manner for arbitration under the rules of the LCIAor by the Court of the LCIA (“the LCIA Court”), the parties shall be taken to have agreed in writingthat the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following rules (“the Rules”)*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 3
  • 5. If the contractual negotiations fail, the next step is for the disputants to commencearbitration proceedings. To do so, they have to first comply with Section 14(3) ofthe Act. The Section provides that Where the arbitrator is named or designated in the arbitration agreement, arbitral proceedings are commenced in respect of a matter when one party serves on the other party or parties a notice in writing requiring him or them to submit that matter to the person so named or designated.Where the contract does not stipulate the procedure for triggering the arbitrationprocess, either party will have to issue a S.14(3) notice. This Step is important inamong other things forming basis for raising or defending objections on limitationof time prescribed by Clause 29.2 of the Contract10. The notice, as was pointed outin Bulk & Metal Transport v Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax Pool LLC,11needs to beclear that the arbitration agreement is being invoked and that the respondent isrequired to take steps accordingly.In the event that time has lapsed, the initiating party may proceed under Section12 of the Act to obtain an order of Court extending time within which to lodge theclaim. This is one of the Mandatory provisions of the Act12 meaning irrespective ofany other agreement, the right under this provision can still be exercised13.1.4.2 Request for arbitration under the LCIA Rules10 As read with Appendix 1 to Section 1 -Form of Agreement which contains the actuallimitation period11 [2009] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 37712 Schedule 1 of the Act Guy Pendell and David Bridge, “Arbitration in England & Wales” in Torsten Lörcher, Guy13Pendell and Jeremy Wilson, (eds) CMS Guide to Arbitration (CMS Legal Service, 2012)*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 4
  • 6. At the lapse of the Section 14(3) notice, the next step is to comply with Article 1(1)of the LCIA Rules which requires Any party wishing to commence arbitration under these Rules (“the Claimant”) [to] send to the Registrar of the LCIA Court (“the Registrar”) a written request for arbitration (“the Request”)The Request is to be accompanied by the Statement of Claim describing the natureand circumstances of the dispute, and specifying the claims. The other documentsto accompany the Request include a copy of the Arbitration Agreement andcontract, proof of service.2.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES DURING THE ARBITRATIONThe conduct of institutional arbitration procedures is predominantly governed bythe rules of the chosen institution14 which in this case is the LCIA and the law of theseat of the arbitration. Going by the decision in C vs. D,15 English Law will be thelex arbitri since the parties have elected London as the seat of the arbitration16.2.1 Appointment of ArbitratorsThe mandate to appoint the Tribunal under the Rules lies with the LCIA with limitedinput by the parties. Under Article 5.4 of the LCIA Rules, the Tribunal to conductthe arbitration is to be constituted once the Respondent files their reply to theClaim or not later than 30 days after the Claim had been served.14 Michael Pryles, „Limits to Party Autonomy in Arbitral Procedure‟, (ICCA, 2008)http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12223895489410/limits_to_party_autonomy_in_international_commercial_arbitration.pdf accessed 28th February 2013 accessed 2nd March 201315 [2007] EWHC 154116 Annex to the Contract*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 5
  • 7. Party contribution is limited. For instance a reading of Article 7.1 of the Rules alsoindicates that party autonomy may extend to nomination of an arbitrator. However,the actual appointment is at the discretion of the Court. Article 5.4 allows theparties to agree on whether they want more than one arbitrator to form theTribunal. Under Article 5.5, the appointment of arbitrators is to be done with „dueregard for any particular method or criteria of selection agreed in writing by theparties‟. Further, in exceptional urgency, a party may under Article 9 apply to theCourt for the expedited formation of the Tribunal.Where the parties have agreed to participate in the appointment of the arbitrators itwill be important for each party to cooperate and comply with the timelines ofagreements otherwise they will be treated as having passed up the opportunity.This was the case in Minermet SA Milan v Luckyfield Shipping Corpn SA17where one of the parties was in default.2.2 Conduct of the hearingUnder Article 19.2 of the LCIA Rules, the Tribunal has the discretion to „fix the date,time and physical place of any meetings and hearings in the arbitration‟. Article 14however permits (and encourages) the parties to „agree on the conduct of theirarbitral proceedings‟. Such agreement is however subject to the Tribunal‟s duties:- (i) to act fairly and impartially as between all parties, giving each a reasonable opportunity of putting its case and dealing with that of its opponent18; and17 [2004] EWHC 729 (Comm)18 The Courts in England as was the case in Stretford v The Football Association Ltd &Another[2004] EWHC 729 (Comm) consider arbitration procedures to be subject toconstitutional requirements of fairness*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 6
  • 8. (ii) to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the arbitration, avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so as to provide a fair and efficient means for the final resolution of the parties‟ disputeIndeed it is a mandatory duty of the parties pursuant to Section 40 of the Act asinterpreted by the High Court (Aikens J) in Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA19to act in a manner that promotes expeditious and proper conduct of the arbitrationproceedings. In any event this is another opportunity for the parties to exercisetheir autonomy, albeit limited to secure a speedy hearing and determination of thedispute.2.3 Laying down the rules on and Observation of ConfidentialityThe general rule is that the proceedings at the LCIA are to be conducted in privateand matters therein treated with confidentiality20. In light of Article 30,confidentiality covers the awards, materials used in the proceedings anddeliberations of the Tribunal. The only exception is where the parties have agreedotherwise21The Court of Appeal in England has had occasion in the case of Emmot vs.Michael Wilson & Partners22 to emphasize that19 [2007] EWHC 11 (Comm)20 Articles 19.4 & 3021 Ibid22 [2008] EWCA Civ 184*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 7
  • 9. „the parties [are] under an obligation of confidence to use documents disclosed or generated in an arbitration only for the purposes of the arbitration even if the documents did not contain anything which was in itself confidential. The obligation [arises], not as a matter of business efficacy, but [is] implied as a matter of law. Such documents could not be disclosed to a third party without the consent of the other party or pursuant to an order of the court‟The parties will therefore be bound to uphold confidentiality throughout theproceedings or otherwise agree in writing on the exceptions.2.4 Application for Interim & Conservatory ordersAs the arbitration progresses, there may be need to preserve the subject matter23.For instance on the basis of apprehension as to the financial liquidity of theRespondent , it may be necessary to ensure that in the event that the Claimantgets an award in its favour, it is able to realize it.By way of an application for a conservatory order as permitted by Article 25 of theRules, the Claimant may approach the Tribunal by way of an application for aconservatory order requiring the Respondent to tender security for the amount indispute and for costs. Under Section 38 of the Act, this power is viewed as apreserve of the Tribunal.242.5 Applications for supplementary orders of Court23 Raymond Werbicki, “Arbitral Interim Orders: Fact or Fiction” in AAA Handbook onInternational Arbitration & ADR (Jurisnet, 2010)24 Sandip Adhipathi, „Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration: Past,Present and Future‟ (University of Georgia, 2003)http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stu_llmaccessed on 13th February 2013*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 8
  • 10. Court‟s will not intervene in arbitration proceedings except to offer necessarysupportive orders.25 Under Section 44 of the Act the High Court may issuesupplementary orders for:- (a) the taking of the evidence of witnesses; (b) the preservation of evidence; (c) permitting collection of evidence from the subject propertyThe exercise of this power by court is however restricted. For instance in Assimina 26Maritime Ltd v Pakistan Shipping Corporation the Court (Colman J) rejectedthe invoking of Section 44 to obtain ordinary disclosure of documents from a non-party to the arbitration.273.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES POST ARBITRATIONThe arbitration process is substantively concluded when the Tribunal makes itsdecision (the award)28. Generally, the award is deemed final and cannot bechallenged by the parties.2925 Sandip Adhipathi, (above n19) pg 1826 [2005] All ER (D) 202 (Jan)27 However See Gordon Blanke, “Supporting Role: Arbitration and the Courts” where indiscussing Section 44 he argues that, „non-parties can nonetheless be forced to disclosedocuments in arbitral proceedings provided that the individual application for disclosure is sufficientlyspecific and the documents to be disclosed are crucial to the questions which have been submitted fordetermination in the arbitration proceedings‟http://www.sjberwin.com/Contents/Publications/pdf/100/240707012642.pdf accessed on2nd March 201328 Article 26 of the Rules29 Margaret Tofalides & Clair Athurs “Mission impossible? Challenging Arbitration Awards InEngland” (Arbitration Newsletter, September 2012)http://www.manches.com/Content/Resources/files/Margaret%20Tofalides%20Article%20IBA%20Newsletter%20September%202012.pdf accessed on 2nd March 2013*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 9
  • 11. 3.1 Challenging the awardSection 58 of the Act renders the decision of the any Arbitration Tribunal conclusiveand binding on the parties. It provides that Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an award made by the tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement is final and binding both on the parties and on any persons claiming through or under themHowever, subsection (2) permits appeals or review but only where it is provided forelsewhere in the Act.Arising from the exception Section 67 of the Act permits the challenging the awardfor want of jurisdiction. This provision is mandatory30 and hence it overrides theprovision of the LCIA Rules. Appeal on question of law to the High Court ispermitted by Section 6931. Such an appeal must be lodged within 28 days of theaward32. In fact the High Court (Blair J) in Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v EneAegiali I33 has even held that the parties cannot agree (party autonomynotwithstanding) to appeal the award on a question of law.The Rules do not allow an appeal. Under Article 26.9 of the Rules, the decision ofthe Tribunal (award) is final and binding. Article 29.2 goes ahead to provide that To the extent permitted by the law of the seat of the arbitration, the parties shall be taken to have waived any right of appeal or review in respect of any such decisions of the LCIA Court to any state court or other judicial authority.30 Schedule 1 of the Act31 As would be read with Article 29.2 of the Rules32 Section 70(3) of the Act33 [2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm)*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 10
  • 12. Being that Section 69 of the Act is not a mandatory provision, the effect of Article29.2 is to oust the right of appeal even on a point of law34. However, the rulespermit Correction of any computation, clerical or typographical errors under Clause70.1 of the Rules. An application for such correction must be done within 30 days ofreceipt of the award3.2 EnforcementUnder the LCIA Rules the parties are under a duty to ensure that the award isenforceable.35 A party wishing to enforce the award therefore has two options; - enforcement pursuant to the Arbitration Act or 36 - Pursuant to the New York ConventionBy way of illustration if the Respondent has assets in Kazakhstan the enforcementis better pursued through the Convention. Under Article III of the Convention, thecontracting states are obliged „to recognise arbitral awards and to enforce them in accordance with the Rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon..‟Kazakhstan is a party to the Convention having acceded to it in 1995 hence isbound by Article III.37 Pursuant to Kazakhstani Arbitration Courts Law and the34 Guy Pendell and David Bridge, (above n16)35 Article 32.236 UN, Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958)http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf accessed 4thMarch 2013*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 11
  • 13. International Commercial Arbitration Law a party may now approach the court ofthose countries for the purposes of enforcement of international awards38.4.0 CONCLUSION4.1 The principlesIt is important for disputants to note that on the basis of the principle of sanctity ofcontracts, any intended legal action to resolve their disputes must abide theContract between the two and the supporting laws and Rules.39 Where theAgreement envisages the application of English law to the arbitration procedure,the disputants should also be aware of the key procedural matters highlightedwhich are rendered mandatory by virtue of Section 4 of the Act as read withSchedule 1. Most important among these is the general duties of a party toarbitration proceedings. Such duties including the duty to ensure expediting theprocess would not only amount to compliance with the law, but would also servethe commercial interest of business oriented entity40.4.2 The proceduresThe commercial interest of the disputants is also likely to be well served if theyabide all the procedures provided by their Contract. Consensual negotiation albeit37 New York Arbitration Convention, “Convention Countries”, 2009http://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states/list-of-contracting-states38 Aigoul Kenjebayeva and Yuliya Mitrofanskaya, “Kazakhstan” in James Charter (ed),International Arbitration Review (Law Business Research Ltd, 2011)39 Michael Pryles, (above n ) pg 1740 Anthony Connerty, “Dispute Resolution In The Oil And Gas Industry - Recent Trends”(CEPMLP Vol 8) http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol8/article8-8.htmlaccessed 12th February 2013*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 12
  • 14. not enforceable under English law, even where not expressly provided for under thecontract offers a cheap, simple and fast option as compared to the defaultprocesses of arbitration and litigation41. The fact that some Contracts presentlitigation as the default Dispute resolution mechanism should be a further incentiveto make adequate commitment to the ADR processes provided for under theContract. Litigation portends a costly, time intensive and non-confidential forum fordispute resolution.424.3 The StepsWith the foregoing considered the steps that disputants looking to present a disputeat the London Court of International Arbitration need to take may be summarizedas follows:- (i) Ascertain whether the claim is a ‘dispute’ under the Contract (ii) Undertake the Contractual Negotiations (iii) Issue Notice of Arbitration (iv) Lodge Request for Arbitration (v) Participate in the appointment of the Arbitration Tribunal (vi) Seek Interim Orders e.g. for deposit of security for costs and Inspection if necessary (vii) Undertake discovery41 Mohammad Alramahi, “Dispute Resolution in Oil & Gas Contracts” [2011] 3 I.E.L.R. 78http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159702 accessed on 5th March 201342 Ibid*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 13
  • 15. (viii) Participate in setting the procedural rules of engagement including regulation of confidentiality if need be and setting of timelines (ix) Attend Hearings through legal representatives (x) Seek Court help in preservation of evidence and attendance of witnesses if necessary (xi) Challenge the award by review or for want of jurisdiction if necessary (xii)Enforce award on Kazakhstan under the New York Convention if necessary (xiii) Pursue litigation should Arbitration fail BIBLIOGRAPHYStatutesArbitration Act, 1996 (England & Wales)Arbitration Courts Law (Khazakhstan)*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 14
  • 16. International Commercial Arbitration Law, 2004 (Khazakhstan)Civil Procedure Rules, 1998 (UK)Case LawArgentina vs BG Group D.C. Court of Appeals, No. 1:08-cv-00485Assimina Maritime Ltd v Pakistan Shipping Corporation [2005] All ER (D) 202 (Jan)Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC)C vs. D[2007] EWHC 1541Bulk & Metal Transport v Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax Pool LLC, [2009] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 377Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v Ene Aegiali I[2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm)Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA[2007] EWHC 11 (Comm)Emmot vs. Michael Wilson & Partners [2008] EWCA Civ 184International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 226Minermet SA Milan v Luckyfield Shipping Corpn SA [2004] EWHC 729 (Comm)Stretford v The Football Association Ltd & Another[2004] EWHC 729 (Comm)Wah (Aka Alan Tang) & Another v Grant Thornton International Ltd & Others [2012] EWHC3198 (Ch)TreatiesUN, Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958)http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 15
  • 17. BooksAAA, Handbook on International Arbitration & ADR (Jurisnet, 2010)Brown, Henry J. & Marriott, Arthur L., (eds) ADR Principles and Practice, (Sweet & MaxwellLtd, 1999)James Charter (ed), International Arbitration Review (Law Business Research Ltd, 2011)Margaret L Moses, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration,(Cambridge, 2008)Torsten Lörcher, Guy Pendell and Jeremy Wilson, (eds) CMS Guide to Arbitration (CMS LegalService, 2012)ArticlesAigoul Kenjebayeva and Yuliya Mitrofanskaya, “Kazakhstan” in James Charter (ed),International Arbitration Review (Law Business Research Ltd, 2011)Always Associates, „Judicial Guidance on the Meaning of Dispute‟, January 2005)http://www.alway-associates.co.uk/legal-update/article.asp?id=71Anthony Connerty, “Dispute Resolution In The Oil And Gas Industry - Recent Trends”(CEPMLP Vol 8) http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol8/article8-8.htmlBrown, Henry J. & Marriott, Arthur L., “Choice and timing of Process Use" in, Brown, HenryJ. & Marriott, Arthur L., (eds) ADR Principles and Practice, (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 1999)Gordon Blanke, “Supporting Role: Arbitration and the Courts”http://www.sjberwin.com/Contents/Publications/pdf/100/240707012642.pdfGuy Pendell and David Bridge, “Arbitration in England & Wales” in Torsten Lörcher, GuyPendell and Jeremy Wilson, (eds) CMS Guide to Arbitration (CMS Legal Service, 2012)Margaret Tofalides & Clair Athurs “Mission impossible? Challenging Arbitration Awards InEngland” (Arbitration Newsletter, September 2012)*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 16
  • 18. Michael Pryles, „Limits to Party Autonomy in Arbitral Procedure‟, (ICCA, 2008)http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12223895489410/limits_to_party_autonomy_in_international_commercial_arbitration.pdf accessed 28th February 2013Mohammad Alramahi, “Dispute Resolution in Oil & Gas Contracts” [2011] 3 I.E.L.R. 78http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159702Raymond Werbicki, “Arbitral Interim Orders: Fact or Fiction” in AAA, Handbook onInternational Arbitration & ADR (Jurisnet, 2010)Sandip Adhipathi, „Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration: Past, Presentand Future‟ (University of Georgia, 2003)http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stu_llmOthersNew York Arbitration Convention, “Convention Countries”, 2009http://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states/list-of-contracting-states*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University 17