Annet van Hooft

van Hooft Legal

Paris www.vanhooft-legal.com

vanhooft@vanhooft-legal.com Tel: +33 6 19 15 92 93

Biography

Annet van Hooft is an independent arbitrator based in Paris. After having practised for more than 20 years at major US and UK law firms in Brussels, New York and Paris, and having been a counsel at the ICC Court of Arbitration, Annet set up her own law firm focusing on international arbitration. She has a broad range of experience handling a wide variety of disputes (construction, energy, corporate, IP and life sciences).

How has the role of arbitrator changed since you started your career?

The intrinsic role of an arbitrator, which is to render a decision in a dispute between two or more parties, has, of course, not changed. Arbitrators have, however, become more proactive in managing the proceedings. Today, it is virtually unheard of to not have at least one case management conference at the outset of the proceedings, if not several case management conferences over the course of the proceedings. Arbitrators have also become more aware of public policy issues, such as issues related to competition law and corruption. Arbitrators tend to raise these issues more frequently so that they can be treated upfront.

What do you enjoy most about working in arbitration?

The inherent international nature of arbitration provides us with privileged access to a diverse cultural environment, both on a human and intellectual level. I find this to be very enriching.

Some jurisdictions are drafting new rules on expedited summary proceedings in arbitration. How fast can disputes proceed without breaching procedural rights?

There are natural limits to what can be achieved in terms of speed for dispute resolution. Often there is a big discrepancy between the expectations of the parties before a dispute arises, and the real-life possibilities once a dispute has arisen.

I consider it is important that the applicable rules allow for flexibility in terms of the time period allowed to come to a decision. There are cases where it is entirely appropriate that provisional relief is granted in less than one week, for example, when the matter is extremely urgent and rather straightforward. There also are cases, where a one-month period is appropriate, when the matter is more complex and perhaps somewhat less urgent, even though for example the constitution of the arbitral tribunal cannot be awaited.

Given the increasing number of conflicts arbitrators and counsel are experiencing, should there be a set of universal conflict principles across arbitration institutions?

I consider this would be a good idea, as not all arbitration institutions appear to apply the same standards. Indeed, although some institutions have published their own guidelines in relation to conflicts of interest, such as the ICC, many institutions do not go beyond “blanket” requirements of independence.

In the absence of detailed guidelines from the institutions, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration have in large part, been the international arbitration community’s beacon on issues of conflicts. Given that they were last revised in 2014, and in light of the increased demand for transparency, it might be time to revisit them. Perhaps, arbitral institutions could play a greater role in the revision process and so come to a greater consensus.

This is important so that parties know what they can legitimately expect from arbitrators in terms of disclosures, but also for arbitrators, so that they know what is expected of them (and can comply) and are shielded from unmeritorious challenges, which regrettably also still happen.

What are the advantages of having diverse geographical and sector experience? What benefits does it deliver to parties?

The advantage of having diverse geographical and sector experience is that it provides arbitrators with a better understanding of the context of a dispute. This allows arbitrators to engage more thoroughly with the legal and other issues at stake.

What steps can be made to increase diversity in the arbitration field?

As Melanie van Leeuwen mentioned during her keynote speech at the 2022 Paris Arbitration Week, diversity is not a matter of choice, it is a necessity on which the future of arbitration as a self-standing means of dispute resolution depends. We live in a globalised world and arbitration is the method through which we resolve the disputes that are generated by international commerce. The first steps to be made are our own. Practitioners should therefore consciously make efforts to focus on increasing diversity in the arbitration field. This would include, for example, proposing diverse panels of arbitrators and hiring associates from different legal backgrounds.

What makes van Hooft stand out from its competitors in the market?

The fact that I work in a small structure, which results in little to no conflicts, my significant experience as an arbitrator and my ability to work in several languages makes van Hooft stand out from its competitors. Moreover, I have expertise in fields that often have recourse to arbitration such as construction and energy, IP, tech, and pharma, and of course corporate disputes.

Peers and clients say: “Annet is a very knowledgeable and incredibly able arbitrator” “She has strong institutional experience from the ICC” “She is an outstanding co-arbitrator”