The resolver summer 2013

THERESOLVER

T H E Q UA RT E R LY M AG A Z I N E O F T H E C H A RT E R E D I N S T I T U T E O F A R B I T RAT O R S

Mandatory mediation makes a comeback in Italy The rise in popularity of ADR and arbitration in the Middle East How to select an arbitrator CIArb Members’ Lunch special Legal round-up www.ciarb.org

August 2013

Co-operative dispute resolution

How dispute boards are shaping major infrastructure projects

p01_cover.indd 1

19/07/2013 14:20

Looking to appoint a Dispute Resolver?

CIArb-DAS can help you.

CIArb Dispute Appointment Service (CIArb-DAS) delivers a range of cost effective dispute resolution services which encompass arbitration, mediation, adjudication and independent expert determination.

This service is underpinned by a commitment to first class customer service delivered with integrity and impartiality.

Building on CIArb’s position as a leading global professional body in the field of ADR, CIArb-DAS maintains specialist presidential panels comprising of senior practitioners from the fields of law, surveying, accounting, engineering and architecture who are skilled in the use of ADR processes to solve complex commercial and personal disputes.

For more information please contact Waj Khan at ›› E: wkhan@ciarb.org T: 020 7421 7441

Arbitration / Adjudication / Mediation

RES.02.13.002.indd 1

18/03/2013 11:11

CONTACTS Redactive Publishing Ltd 17 Britton Street, London EC1M 5TP T: +44 (0)20 7880 6200 EDITORIAL T: +44 (0)20 7880 6200 E: editorial@ciarb.org Editor: Rima Evans Sub editor: Steve Smethurst Art editor: Adrian Taylor Picture editor: Sam Kesteven ADVERTISING Sales executive: James Condley T: +44 (0)20 7880 7661 E: james.condley@redactive.co.uk PUBLISHER Steve Grice E: steve.grice@redactive.co.uk PRODUCTION Production manager: Jane Easterman Senior production executive: Aysha Miah © THE RESOLVER is published on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) by Redactive Publishing Ltd (RPL), 17 Britton St, London EC1M 5TP. This magazine aims to include a broad range of opinion and professional issues and articles do not necessarily reflect the views of CIArb nor should such opinions be relied upon as statements of fact. All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, transmitted or stored in any print or electronic format, including but not limited to any online service, any database or any part of the internet, or in any other format in whole or in part in any media whatsoever, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

While all due care is taken in writing and producing this magazine, neither CIArb nor RPL accept any liability for the accuracy of the contents or any opinions expressed herein. Printed by Pensord Press Ltd ISSN 1743 8845 CIArb ENQUIRIES

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators 12 Bloomsbury Square, London WC1A 2LP, UK T: +44 (0)20 7421 7444 E: info@ciarb.org W: www.ciarb.org COURSES & QUALIFICATIONS T: +44 (0)20 7421 7439 E: education@ciarb.org DISPUTES APPOINTMENT SERVICE T: +44 (0)20 7421 7441 Waj Khan E: wkhan@ciarb.org Kam Nayee E: knayee@ciarb.org EVENTS T: +44 (0)20 7421 7427 Helen Chowaniec E: hchowaniec@ciarb.org LEGAL SERVICES T: +44 (0)20 7421 7438 Velia Soames E: vsoames@ciarb.org MEMBERSHIP T: +44 (0)20 7421 7490 Sue McLaughlin E: memberservices@ciarb.org MARKETING & SPONSORSHIP T: +44 (0)20 7421 7441 Waj Khan E: wkhan@ciarb.org POLICY/PUBLIC AFFAIRS & PR T: +44 (0)20 7421 7485 Russell Bramley E: rbramley@ciarb.org PRESS OFFICE T: +44 (0)20 7421 7473 RESEARCH & ACADEMIC AFFAIRS T: +44 (0)20 7421 7434 Julio Cesar Betancourt E: jbetancourt@ciarb.org DISCLAIMER: The contents of this publication are not intended to be a substitute for either general or specific legal advice on individual matters, and readers are strongly encouraged to seek competent legal advice.

Registered Charity N0− 803725

p03 contents new.indd 3

Vinayak Pradhan

LEADER

WELCOME TO THE AUGUST EDITION OF The Resolver. Since writing the last column, I have participated in the Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot in Vienna which was a tremendous success with more than 280 teams taking part. There was a poignant moment with Professor Eric Bergsten making his farewell speech after being the driving force behind this competition since its inception some 20 years ago. I was also privileged to address a gathering at the residence of the British Ambassador to Austria, Mrs le Jeune d’Allegeershecque, and I thank her for her gracious hospitality.

The LCIA European Users’ Council Symposium at Tylney Hall was also very informative with interactive sessions that included many of the better known names in international arbitration.

The AGM on 17 May saw the passing of the constitutional amendments without any controversy.

This was followed by the third annual Roebuck lecture with the topic being “Mediation – a social antibody?”

I would like to thank Stephen Ruttle QC for presenting a thought-provoking lecture as well as inspiring those present to look selflessly at contributing to community mediations.

On 14 May, I hosted this year’s Members’ Lunch which was held at London’s Paramount Restaurant and Bar. Thank you to everybody who was involved in organising this successful event. You can read more about the lunch on page 16. Other features in this issue include a look at the use of dispute boards in infrastructure disputes (page 10), how to select an arbitrator (page 14) and a regional focus examining ADR trends in the Middle East (page 6).

Elsewhere, there has been an increase in the number of appointments of neutrals compared with the same time last year. Members are again encouraged to update their profiles to provide details of their expertise as this helps the appointment process.

Arbitrations in Asia continue to increase too. A survey has concluded that in 2008 the number of arbitration cases received by the major international arbitration centres in the West totalled 1,888 compared with 2,050 in Asia (although the CIETAC figures included domestic arbitrations). This underscores the significance of the CIArb International Arbitration conference in Georgetown, Penang, Malaysia and I hope to see many of you there between 22 and 24 August.

I hope to see many of you in Malaysia from 22-24 August

Vinayak Pradhan FCIArb C.Arb President of CIArb

CONTENTS WATCH 4-5 News: Italy brings back mandatory mediation; Obituary, John Rushton, former external legal adviser to CIArb; new arbitration centre becomes operational in Nairobi 9 Law round-up: Whyte and Mackay Ltd v Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd; U&M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines Plc

REGULARS AND FEATURES 6 10 14 15 16 18

ADR in the Middle East: Rapid economic growth and major construction projects are fuelling the demand for arbitration and ADR Cover: The adoption of dispute boards – most commonly found in large infrastructure projects – is on the rise How To… select an arbitrator CIArb Branch news: The European Branch celebrates its 20th anniversary; successful AGM for London Branch CIArb Members’ Lunch: A report from the event at London’s Paramount restaurant What’s On: Round-up of upcoming training courses August 2013 | THERESOLVER

3

22/07/2013 10:47

21,300

WATCH

The number of commercial and civil disputes resolved through arbitration, mediation and adjudication in the UK in 2011. This figure was down from 27,100 in 2009.

Source: Dispute Resolution in London and the UK, a report by TheCityUK

Italy brings back mandatory mediation Mandatory mediation has been re-introduced in Italy for a broad range of legal disputes in an effort to eliminate more than a million civil disputes over the next five years.

The decree containing the measure was approved in June reversing a ruling made in October 2012 that mandatory mediation was unconstitutional.

Originally, mandatory mediations were introduced in early 2011 and produced notable results despite a backlash from the legal profession.

More than 220,000 mediations were started (compared with around 1,000 the year before) and, when both parties appeared before the mediator, nearly 50 per cent were settled. Against a backdrop of there being an average three-year wait for trial decisions, and with 5.4 million disputes currently pending before Italian courts, such

EMPICS

Move comes as courts face a backlog of more than five million disputes

Minister: Anna Maria Cancellieri

results were considered to be extremely successful.

Consequently Anna Maria Cancellieri, the Italian Minister of Justice undertook the re-writing of Italian mediation policies,

pushing for a return to mandatory mediation in the form of a revised policy which sought to appease critics.

New changes allow litigants, in the early stages of mediation, to withdraw, or ‘opt-out’, from the process at nominal cost. This mechanism provides a low-risk mediation experience for litigants, especially considering that, when obliged to mediate, parties reached an agreement in half of the cases.

Despite earlier concern from the legal community, legal professionals such as Giovanni Lega, President of Italy’s Associazione Studi Legali Associati (ASLA), acknowledged that aside from reducing court delays, mediation offers additional benefits.

“Mediation is a tool that, in certain disputes, provides more flexibility and advantages [than litigation]”. It also allows for

GETTY

‘San Pedro Sula in Honduras was recently named the world’s most violent city with a daily average of three murders’ 4

settlements without the red tape of trial decisions, Lega said.

The amendments have been welcomed by a large part of the legal community. Fabrizio Colonna, of ASLA said: “Recent developments on mediation clearly go in the direction of resuscitating an important tool.

There might be further adaptations in order to make it more easily digestible to the majority of legal practitioners but the fact that a good number of local bar associations have set up specific mediation bodies means they have understood the importance of it.”

If successful, this new model may inspire other EU member states facing increased litigation costs and budget cuts to adopt similar legislative measures, according to ASLA. The Italian decree went into effect immediately but must be converted into a law by Parliament within 60 days.

Mediation has brought about a truce among two of the largest and most dangerous street gangs in Honduras in a bid to end decades of bloodshed and violence.

The “zero crimes, zero violence” deal was signed in a prison in the city of San Pedro Sula in May. It was brought about by mediation with the Organization of American States and the Catholic Church.

San Pedro Sula was recently named the world’s most violent city with a daily average of three murders (although the 2012 report compiled by the Citizen Council for Public Security, Justice and Peace excluded cities in the Middle East).

The truce was the result of eight months of work and modelled on a similar agreement between gangs in El Salvador last year which has since seen the number of murders decline by 52 per cent, according to the Salvadoran government.

THERESOLVER | August 2013

p04_watch..indd 4

19/07/2013 11:50

“It was thoroughly enjoyed by all who attended” → See a selection of images from CIArb’s Members’ Lunch on pages 16-17

OBITUARY

The late John Rushton, 1950 – 2013 Having been external legal adviser to CIArb for 20 years and served on its Professional Conduct Committee, John Rushton played an important part in the Institute’s development, writes Tony Canham FCIArb and Past President John Rushton passed away peacefully at his home in the care of his wife Jenny on 22 May 2013, following a second battle with cancer. It was in late 2002 that John first became unwell with the disease. It was dealt with by surgery at the time, enabling John to return to work in the summer of 2003. Regrettably, in mid-2012, he was struck by cancer again, this time inoperable.

John obtained a law degree at Sidney Sussex College Cambridge and first worked as a solicitor for Freshfields in 1973. He became a litigator and later, working mainly under Alan Redfern, he became experienced in construction cases. In 1980, John moved to a smaller London firm, Rowe and Maw, acting for clients such as the European Investment Bank in Luxembourg, North East Thames Regional Health Authority and British Steel. His work also included cases in the theatre industry.

John became a highly respected solicitor leading to equity partnership in 1986. He became Managing Partner for the Construction and Engineering Group of Rowe and Maw in 1992 and served on the board of the firm from 1999 to 2002. Rowe and Maw amalgamated with Mayer Brown and Platt in 2002 and became Mayer Brown International LLP shortly after. John retired from Mayer Brown in March 2009.

He continued his love of arbitration becoming UK Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution Consultant of the International Chamber of Commerce. John also became an experienced and well respected construction industry adjudicator.

John Rushton had a 20-year period as retained external legal adviser to CIArb, having been recommended to a council member by a young associate in another law firm.

His work was always professional, pragmatic and diligent. He was able to deal skillfully with the widely differing issues arising in that period of growth of the Institute.

John’s wide knowledge of arbitration and construction made him an obvious choice to be recruited to the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of CIArb. His contribution was incisive and imbued with practical common sense. Even during his last year, John’s mind was razor sharp despite the physical damage that was occurring to his body. He continued to make his contributions to the deliberations of the PCC, dictating his analyses and contributions for submission, and participating in meetings by telephone.

In addition, combining his interests in the City of London and in arbitration, John became a Freeman of the City of London and was admitted as a Liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators in 1997. His talents did not go unnoticed and he was quickly appointed to the Court of Assistants and was for some time Chairman of the Charitable Trust. He was elected Junior Warden of the Company in 2006 and served a very successful year as Master Arbitrator in 2008/2009, organised to follow his retirement from full time practice.

John was one of those rare individuals who brought joy to all he knew. He was a true gentleman and he gave his time selflessly. He will be missed by his family, his friends, and those who worked with him professionally at Mayer Brown, CIArb, the Society of Construction Arbitrators, the Society of Construction Law, ICC UK and in the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators.

Nairobi Centre becomes operational The Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration has become operational in Kenya. It has been set up with the aim of promoting ADR methods such as reconciliation, mediation and arbitration and encouraging international commercial

arbitration. The centre will administer domestic and international arbitration, develop internal rules for conciliation and mediation processes and coordinate and facilitate national policies, laws and action plans on ADR as well as have a monitoring

and evaluation role.

The board of directors will draw up rules that govern arbitration proceedings, assist in the recognition and enforcement of awards as well as specify the procedure for filing applications to have arbitral awards set aside.

Lack of clarity in workplaces over mediation Despite considerable awareness of the benefits of mediation in the workplace, many UK employers still claim there is no business case for it, a survey has found.

An online poll carried out by Globis Mediation Group showed that just over half of 100 employers surveyed hadn’t used mediation at work – with 30 per cent of that number saying there was no clear business case.

Yet respondents agreed, (even those who had not used mediation), that the process often has a positive impact on other areas of the business. For example, 67 per cent said it would improve employee relations, and 57 per cent said it would help retain valuable employees. Other benefits cited include developing an organisational culture focused on developing and managing people, reducing sickness and absence and avoiding employment tribunal costs.

“This seems to challenge the legitimacy of ‘lack of a clear business case’ as a reason to discount mediation,” the Workplace Mediation and Conflict Resolution report said.

Nearly two thirds of respondents said there were on average one to four disputes at their organisation a month. Fifteen per cent said they were aware of 10 or more disputes each month.

Although barriers to using mediation also included cost, lack of awareness, or feeling it was not required, the report also showed that where mediation had been used in work situations, respondents believed it had been effective.

“The results of our survey support the already robust case for promoting workplace mediation as a cost-effective and long-term solution to addressing conflict and organisational malaise,” the report concluded.

August 2013 | THERESOLVER

p05_watch.indd Sec1:5

5

19/07/2013 11:51

REGIONAL FOCUS MIDDLE EAST Rapid economic growth and major construction projects are fuelling the demand for arbitration and ADR in the Middle East, Rima Evans reports

SHUTTERSTOCK

T 6

Building for the future

THE MIDDLE EAST’S ascendancy as a major trading hub is having a profound affect on alternative dispute resolution and arbitration practices in the region. Rapid economic development has propelled the need for swift, secure and costeffective means to resolving commercial disputes.

Various countries are strengthening arbitration laws and are experiencing substantial growth in its use (both domestic and international), consolidating the power of the region’s

arbitration centres.

Meanwhile, in other parts, the use of mediation is becoming more formalised and adjudication is also set to make an entrance to the ADR scene.

While changes have been afoot, the use of ADR and arbitration has a strong foundation in the Middle East.

Professor Dr Nayla Comair-Obeid FCIArb, Founding Partner of Obeid Law Firm in Lebanon, points out that mediation has always been the norm in Arab culture and dates back to the pre-Islamic age.

Similarly, Michael Tonkin FCIArb, Vice Chairman of CIArb’s UAE Branch, says arbitration has been part of the local custom for hundreds of years.

However, the past few years have seen the use of ADR gain ground in the region and its place in the commercial world has been cemented. The backdrop to this trend is that the flow of commerce and business has transformed Middle Eastern cities. In the case of Dubai, according to Tonkin, “it has grown from being just homes

The fast growth of Dubai has meant that cases are more complicated than before

around the Creek 50 years ago, to the metropolis it is today.”

Construction projects have accelerated in Dubai. “With all of that building work going on it’s inevitable that people will want recourse when they’re losing money, and Dubai is currently very arbitration orientated,” Tonkin says.

Between 2009 and 2012 the number of disputes registered at the Dubai International Arbitration Centre rose from 292 to 379 although they peaked in 2011 with 440 cases.

Tonkin says: “Around 50–60 per cent of disputes in Dubai are related to real-estate.”

So it is no coincidence that cases peaked during the height of the recession when the greatest impact was felt in construction and property in the city.

Essam Al Tamimi FCIArb, Senior Partner of Al Tamimi and Co in Dubai, agrees that arbitration is emerging as the dispute resolution method of choice for the business world in the UAE, particularly in complex disputes.

“The fast growth of Dubai has meant that cases are more complicated than before. There might be more technical issues, it might involve a large project or multiple parties.

“There is a greater realisation that this requires a specialist person with technical know-how and who can understand the vocabulary or sequence of events and that arbitrators’ decisions can be more sound than those reached in court.”

Al Tamimi also adds: “Talent

THERESOLVER | August 2013 November 2010

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 6

19/07/2013 14:21

379

The number of cases heard at the Dubai International Arbitration Centre in 2012

has grown here in Dubai.

We have capable arbitrators and capable legal counsel who are getting to understand arbitration better.”

Despite significant progress in abating a sense of wariness around arbitration, practitioners agree that further education and training is still essential. Lack of understanding and experience of the process – both on the part of legal counsel and the judiciary – continues to hamper arbitration’s efficacy.

Al Tamimi says enforcement can sometimes be problematic, though there have been a number of local and international arbitration awards including the New York Convention.

“Because of a lack of experience and understanding,

the judicial system can, in certain circumstances, be unsupportive of arbitration by applying a wide meaning to what should be a narrow interpretation of a public order.”

Tonkin adds that some party representatives are still untouched by much of the training activity around arbitration. “Often in smaller arbitral disputes party representatives resort to the practices of the courts rather than embrace the advantages of arbitration.”

With Dubai becoming such a powerful arbitration centre, an upgrading of the UAE’s arbitration laws is urgently needed. Various drafts of the Federal Arbitration Law have been released, but have yet to receive the full support of the arbitration community which is keen that the laws are absolutely world class, says Al Tamimi.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia welcomed a new upgraded arbitration law last year that embodies several principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Hesham Al Homoud, certified arbitrator in Saudi Arabia, says previously, challenges to awards in the Saudi courts were common but that the new law helps avoid this.

“It limits the court intervention in the arbitral process and also in the issuing of an award. Previously, people were discouraged by arbitration because it would just end up in court anyway,” he says.

While arbitration in Saudi must still comply with Sharia law the changes will be of significant benefit, says Al Homoud.

“There is a big market here for arbitration and, if we can provide a method to resolve disputes with the promise that there will be no challenges to decisions, people will be more encouraged to use it.”

Now there is growing pressure for Saudi to open its own arbitration centre, he adds.

Qatar is also in the process of modernising its law on arbitration. It is expected the new rules, again based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, will be passed shortly.

However, Qatar has a unique story to tell, given the extensive investment being ploughed in to the country (between $60bn and $220bn, according to press reports) and the surge of infrastructure projects underway in preparation for its hosting of the FIFA World Cup in 2022.

“Major players have been lured to this market. There has been a tendency to have provisions in contracts that consider ADR and arbitration as dispute resolution methods rather than court,” says Sultan M Al-Abdulla, Managing Partner of Sultan Al-Abdulla and Partners in Doha.

Unsurprisingly, it’s the construction sector that is leading the trend towards arbitration in Qatar. But it’s also bringing into play use of other ADR tools such as dispute review boards which currently feature in a number of infrastructure projects, according to Al-Abdulla.

Further broadening the scope of ADR is a new adjudication scheme to be launched by the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre.

The scheme is being set up, in part, to meet the needs of preparations for the World Cup (see panel, page 8).

Aside from the World Cup, Al-Abdulla notes there has been a clear shift in favour of arbitration in domestic disputes because it is recognised as a more expedient process.

Nevertheless, he echoes concerns from other practitioners that further training and awareness raising of arbitration and ADR is fundamental to its future growth.

Efforts to open a CIArb branch in Qatar are being made in order to help with that agenda.

Domestic construction disputes are also increasingly being August 2013 | THERESOLVER

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 7

7

19/07/2013 14:21

REGIONAL FOCUS

$60bn to $220bn

The estimated amount, according to press reports, to be spent on infrastructure for the Qatar 2022 FIFA World Cup

MIDDLE EAST referred to arbitration in Lebanon, reports Comair-Obeid.

She notes a trend for Islamic banking disputes to make use of arbitration – a huge growth area.

In those cases, arbitration must be compliant with Sharia law.

Developments in Bahrain, too, are bolstering the region’s reputation for arbitration. The country claimed two world firsts in 2009 by creating a “free arbitration zone” and introducing statutory ADR tribunals, under a new law which also formally brought in to effect the Bahrain Chamber for Dispute Resolution (BCDR-AAA). Disputes that meet specific criteria (where a claim exceeds $1.3m, for example) are now referred to the centre instead of going to court.

The free arbitration zone offers “jurisdictional and legal certainty to the recognition of arbitration without the involvement of the national courts,” the BCDR-AAA says, demonstrating the country’s ongoing support for international arbitration.

Middle Eastern countries have also made great strides in furthering the influence of mediation through new laws or the creation of centres. This can only lead to a surge in the popularity of mediation for disputes, says Comair-Obeid.

Her firm was invited to draft a Model Law on Conciliation for the Arab League, which was adopted in 2009 (though it was formally agreed to use ‘conciliation’ in the title, it is mediation that the model law is concerned with). It is intended to be used as a guide for Arab countries keen to place mediation on a more formal legal basis.

However, Jordan was blazing a trail even before then having implemented the Law on Mediation for the Resolution of Civil Disputes in 2006. The law organises the process of judicial mediation that takes place at the Court of First Instance. It has resulted in lightening the load on the courts.

8

The past five years have seen changes.

Mediation is now set down as the first step In 2009, Dubai’s Law Number 16 created a mediation centre – the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes – to work alongside the Dubai courts in dealing with civil and commercial matters, signalling the government’s intention to increase the use of mediation in the city.

Lebanon is also in the process of adopting a law on judicial mediation. Meanwhile, the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration issued new mediation rules this January.

Dr Mark Hoyle FCIArb, Barrister and Partner in SJ Berwin based in Dubai, says mediation is building. “Two or three years ago, mediation was dismissed but that’s not the case any longer.

There is a mixture of mediation being used before arbitration, depending on the wording of the clause, and mediation being

chosen that follows its own formal structure.”

Comair-Obeid points to an interesting trend for mediation clauses to be inserted in contracts because of a growing complexity of transactions, especially in the construction sector, and cultural changes.

Traditionally, in Arab countries, she explains, because mediation is so embedded in the culture it has always been the default way of starting to resolve disputes without requiring it to be set down in a contract.

“The past five years have seen changes. Mediation is now set down as the first step, followed by arbitration.”

Challenges remain for mediation, however. While momentum is growing and its benefits are more widely appreciated, practitioners report that in some parts it is still not hugely popular.

Barriers include mediation not being supported at senior levels, compromising its credibility as well as limited understanding of how mediation works and its benefits.

Similar to arbitration there is an intrinsic need for education and awareness building.

QATAR: ADR AND THE WORLD CUP An adjudication scheme is being launched in Qatar to serve its trade and commercial priorities in the run up to the World Cup tournament in 2022.

The initiative, Q Construct, has been drawn up by the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC).

The World Cup involves a huge infrastructure build, says the centre’s CEO Robert Musgrove.

“The point of adjudication is that it offers very fast (30-day) expert decision-making while projects continue. The decision is then binding.”

Leading experts have designed the scheme, drawing on existing adjudication systems

from around the world, adds Musgrove.

Draft rules have been agreed and the scheme will be launched formally once Qatar’s new arbitration laws are enacted, hopefully later this year. Currently, QICDRC is assembling a panel of 150 expert adjudicators from around the world.

Although the scheme has been built with Qatar’s commercial priorities in mind, anyone will be able to opt to use it.

Musgrove adds: “We are also looking into whether an adjudication scheme would work in other areas: the insurance industry, intellectual property and Islamic finance.”

THERESOLVER | August 2013

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 8

19/07/2013 14:21

LAW

An overview of recent key court cases

ROUND-UP THE ENFORCEMENT OF ADJUDICATION DECISIONS CONTRARY TO HUMAN RIGHTS

THE CASE ○ ADJUDICATION

Whyte and Mackay Ltd v Blyth & Blyth Consulting Engineers Ltd [2013] Scottish Court of Session CSOH 54

W&M ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH B&B to design the structure of a bottling plant. Several years after completion of the works, W&M served a notice of adjudication on B&B, alleging that the foundations of the plant were defective, causing a high degree of settlement, and that B&B had failed to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence.

The adjudication was completed within six weeks and B&B was ordered to pay almost £3 million to W&M. The adjudicator’s decision was not honoured by B&B, and W&M initiated court proceedings to enforce the decision. B&B argued that the adjudicator had failed to give adequate reasons for the determination. It also argued that, in any event, the enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision would be, in the first place, a disproportionate interference with its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (contrary to article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [A1P1]) and, in the second place, that the proceedings before the adjudicator did not amount to a “fair and public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” (contrary to article 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998). The court was asked to determine, first, whether, as submitted by B&B, the adjudicator had failed to deal with the issues put before him and, second, whether the enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision would involve a violation of the aforementioned legislation.

○ THE JUDGMENT

While the court acknowledged the difficulty of the task, it held that the adjudicator did not deal with all the matters referred to him, amounting to a breach of natural justice. The court also concluded that the enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision would violate A1P1. While public interest benefits would usually justify enforcement of an adjudicator’s award, such benefits were absent in this case. The court held it would be disproportionate and wrong to enforce the award, especially in the absence of any security for repayment in the event that B&B was successful when the merits of the claim were finally determined by arbitration, litigation or agreement. However, it found the enforcement of an adjudicator’s decision was not directly decisive of

the right in question, and rejected B&B’s submission that it would be in breach of article 6(1). Enforcement was refused. ○ WHAT IT MEANS

This decision provides a useful illustration concerning the courts’ power to refuse enforcement in cases where violations of human rights are at stake.

The full judgment is available at:

→ www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ ScotCS/2013/2013CSOH54.html

The court concluded that enforcement of the adjudicator’s decision would violate A1P1

THE POWER TO GRANT INTERIM RELIEF IN SUPPORT OF AN ENGLISH ARBITRATION

THE CASE ○ ARBITRATION

U&M Mining Zambia Ltd v Konkola Copper Mines Plc [2013] EWHC 260 (Comm)

U&M AND K ENTERED INTO A MINING contract to operate a copper mine in Zambia. The contract was governed by Zambian law, and contained an LCIA arbitration clause, with London as the seat of the arbitration. The High Court of Zambia was to have exclusive jurisdiction. The contract provided that, upon termination, U&M should leave the site. K terminated (or purported to terminate) the contract.

A dispute arose concerning U&M’s entitlement to a reasonable time to vacate the site, and the possession of its mining equipment as security for advance payment and performance guarantees given by U&M in K’s favour. Since the arbitration tribunal was not yet constituted, K applied to the Zambian courts for an injunction to compel U&M to vacate the mine immediately and hand over certain identified equipment that had been pledged by U&M to K within the guarantees. U&M applied to the English High Court for an anti-suit injunction restraining K from taking steps in the proceedings commenced in Zambia in breach, it was submitted, of the arbitration agreement. An order was granted by the English High Court subject to a hearing to decide whether to make the order final or to discharge it. K argued that it should be discharged on the basis that the parties’ reference to the High Court of Zambia as having “exclusive jurisdiction” meant that, subject to the arbitration agreement, only that court would have jurisdiction to grant an injunction. K further argued that, in accordance with the Zambian Arbitration Act, the parties were entitled to use either the Zambian

court or the English court to obtain interim remedies. The court was asked to consider whether proceedings in Zambia amounted to a breach of the arbitration clause so as to justify the grant of an anti-suit injunction by the English court.

attempt to outflank the arbitration agreement. The injunction was discharged.

○ THE JUDGMENT

The full judgment is available at:

The court held that even though the seat of the arbitration was London, it was not incompatible with the arbitration agreement for K to request an injunction from the Zambian court, or for the court to grant such a measure. It decided that the parties may exceptionally be entitled to seek interim relief in some court other than that of the seat if, for practical reasons, the application can only sensibly be made there, provided that the proceedings are not a disguised

○ WHAT IT MEANS

This case provides guidance as to the natural court for the granting of interim injunctive relief pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. → www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/ Comm/2013/260.html Both reports by Julio César Betancourt MCIArb, Head of Research and Academic Affairs and Velia Soames Solicitor, Director of Legal Services at CIArb.

,

K argued that the parties were entitled to use either Zambian or English courts August 2013 | THERESOLVER

p9_Law.indd 9

9

19/07/2013 11:57

INFRASTRUCTUREPROJECTS DISPUTE BOARDS The adoption of dispute boards – most commonly found in infrastructure projects – is on the rise. Mark Entwistle explains how they have been adapted to meet the needs of recent projects, such as the London 2012 Olympics

Dispute boards lay strong foundations

10

THERESOLVER | August 2013

p10_13 cover feature.indd 10

19/07/2013 14:22

The use of dispute boards first arose on major engineering projects in the USA. Major infrastructure projects remain the most common users

By Mark Entwistle Illustration: Nick Lowndes

THE CONSTRUCTION AND engineering industry has, over many years, given the impression of being beset with disputes. The size and complexity of projects, the numbers of both corporate and individual participants, the use of detailed standard and non-standard contracts and what has historically been a

confrontational approach to corporate relationships have all conspired to generate disagreements between parties.

These factors, coupled with the essentially highly competitive environment in which projects have traditionally been procured, have caused parties to expect disputes to arise.

The resolution of these disputes has come to rely increasingly heavily upon non-court processes. The costs incurred by the parties involved can be considerable, with relationships between them also being put at risk. The focus has, however, switched from binding resolution by tribunal decision imposed upon parties, to a more co-operative and nonconfrontational approach.

The use of dispute boards (DBs), which can contribute significantly to the avoidance and early resolution of disputes, has greatly contributed to that approach, both globally and in the UK, with contract terms increasingly providing for such boards.

There is also a noticeable trend towards adapting standard DB provisions to create a bespoke process that meets the requirements either of the parties themselves or of funding bodies.

Even in respect of more modest projects there has long been the recognition that it is desirable to take confrontation out of dispute resolution, with early-warning terms, executive escalation, mediation and conciliation all used extensively to avoid disputes arising or escalating.

The use of DBs first arose on major engineering projects in the USA. While their use is now global, major infrastructure projects remain the most common users of them. Such is the magnitude and complexity of hydro, transport, petrochemical, power and such schemes, that a DB provides a perfect fit into the management matrix designed to achieve successful completion of the project.

Though the biggest and most complex projects still tend to be those related to infrastructure works, the reach of

August 2013 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 11

11

19/07/2013 14:22

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS DISPUTE BOARDS DBs (either standard or adapted) is extending gradually to more traditional construction projects and to projects of more modest scale. Further, funders such as the World Bank and the Asia and Africa Development Banks now support the use of DBs and require provision to be made for their use on projects that they fund.

The picture is changing, however, with an increasing number of domestic projects around the world being based upon contracts that either feature standard terms requiring a DB to be established, or else utilise bespoke, or adapted standard, clauses for the purpose.

The result is that, whereas outside the USA the use of DBs was previously seen mostly in developing countries, and especially involving infrastructure projects, it is quite common nowadays to find them used in Europe, Australia and Asia.

In the UK, DBs were used as far back as on the Channel Tunnel project and, in more recent times, the process was adapted for the London 2012 Olympics project and is currently being used in the contract for the construction of the new Forth Replacement Crossing in Scotland, (where a five-person standing board is in place). However, the current Crossrail project – a £14billion development delivering high-frequency train services in the South East due to complete in 2018 – utilises a more conventional panel of adjudicators under an adapted NEC contract.

Engineering and construction contracts have traditionally included a detailed array of terms and conditions that reflected the complexity of the projects concerned and of the risks that were inherent in both the construction process and the relationships between the parties involved. Even the most straightforward projects were thought to need the protection that a detailed and comprehensive contract could provide.

The complexity of contract terms reflects the magnitude and variety of risks that parties consider themselves subject to, but those terms themselves introduce further risks of obligation and liability. It would not be

12

A standing board of 12 adjudicators was put in place to address disputes arising out of the major contracts on the London 2012 Olympics inappropriate to observe that one of the fundamental functions of a contract is to reflect the manner in which the contracting parties wish the project risks (financial, legal, management, resource) to be divided between them, but it is ironic that the risks might be added to by the very documents designed to reflect that division.

By so dividing the risks, if effectively drafted, contract terms might be said to assist the resolution of disputes. Sadly, experience has taught that this has been far from the

case, with increasingly sophisticated and imaginative legal arguments being advanced to support each party’s position in a dispute.

The complexity of the project and its management, and of the legal framework employed, has added to the difficulty inherent in attempting to avoid disputes and in resolving them expediently and economically. National courts around the world have regularly been required to rule upon the interpretation of contract clauses, reflecting the fact that, often, the source of dispute is not some practical issue, but a matter of contract interpretation.

At the international forefront of the development of contractual provisions designed to assist in the resolution of disputes, and latterly the avoidance of them, has been the FIDIC (Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs-Conseils) suite of contracts. In the UK, the NEC suite encourages parties to adopt co-operative management, but still tends to rely upon traditional non-court dispute resolution, albeit with a nod in the direction of non-confrontational resolution.

The most recently published contracts of the FIDIC suite (commonly referred to as the Gold, Red, Silver and Orange books) contain detailed provisions for the constitution and operation of, variously, a dispute review board (DRB) or a dispute adjudication board (DAB). On occasion, the standard terms are varied to allow for the appointment of a single dispute review expert (DRE).

In the 1990s, the World Bank introduced a modified FIDIC contract containing terms that provided for dispute review boards to produce non-binding recommendations. That development was followed up by FIDIC itself, and the distinction between DRBs (making non-binding recommendations) and DABs (making binding decisions) came into being.

In recent times, the World Bank and FIDIC have started to harmonise their DB provisions, and in 2005 a suite of FIDIC conditions was published that has been adopted by all the major development banks that promote the use of DBs. It is not unusual for standard form contracts to be adapted in the manner in which DBs are used. On the London 2012 Olympics project, for example, a standing board of 12 adjudicators (each nominated by a professional institution) was put in place to address disputes arising out of the major contracts that were let. The contract terms were modelled upon the NEC contract suite,

THERESOLVER | August 2013

p10_13 cover feature.indd 12

19/07/2013 14:23

particularly Options A and C, adapted to introduce an adjudication panel as the standing board.

In a rather radical departure from usual DB practice, however, a further body was constituted, an Independent Dispute Avoidance Panel (IDAP) of eight members, whose remit was to assist parties in the consensual resolution of any matter brought to it. By this means the avoidance of disputes was addressed separately from the resolution of them by tribunal decision. The arrangement was spectacularly successful, with only a handful of disputes from this enormous project requiring determination by the adjudication board.

As mentioned earlier, a different adaptation of standard (NEC) clauses is seen on London’s Crossrail project, where parties are required to use their reasonable endeavours to resolve any dispute by means of prompt, bona fide discussion at managerial level, though subsequent resolution by an adjudicator is the only formal next step provided for, save for litigation.

By way of contrast, a different approach to co-operative dispute resolution is gaining ground in Qatar, the location of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, where substantial infrastructure development is scheduled to take place (see Regional focus, page 6). Two significant players in the arena of non-court dispute resolution (the Qatar International Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration and the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre) have developed, or are developing, conciliation rules designed to encourage constructive dialogue between parties and the use of facilitated settlement of disputes, leading to a formal settlement agreement that will be binding upon them.

The rules that apply to the operation of DBs, or processes derived from them, are generally found in the terms of the contract between the parties. Where these appear in unamended standard forms of contract, parties become familiar with the use of boards, the mechanics of appointment of board members and the operation of the board.

There is nothing in law to prevent parties agreeing their own bespoke provisions for DBs, or to adopting a varied or entirely different approach to co-operative dispute resolution as has been exemplified earlier, though such variants suffer the relative disbenefit of rendering it potentially more difficult to secure the services of board members and of losing the advantages that familiarity brings.

The most striking feature of DBs

Even smaller projects can involve multiple parties, cultures, languages, practices and potential conflict of laws issues themselves, and that which sets them apart from other non-court dispute procedures, lies in the fact that it is possible that a board may be constituted very early in the life of a project (a standing board), enabling the board members to effectively monitor the progress of the project and to be on-hand as soon as the seeds of a dispute are sown. The alternative is for the parties to appoint a board (an ad-hoc board) once a dispute arises, though this approach denies the benefit of project monitoring and early intervention.

The types of board mentioned earlier adopt differing approaches when it comes to addressing disputes that arise. In simple terms, a DRB makes recommendations to the parties once it has been brought in to address a dispute. These are not binding upon the parties (unless they agree it to be so) and they are free to adopt or to ignore the recommendations made.

The advantage of this approach is that independent individuals (the board members), who are expert and knowledgeable in respect of the work comprising the project and the type of contract entered into by the parties, can apply their judgment to the issues raised unencumbered by any semblance of vested interest in the outcome of the dispute, and to make recommendations accordingly. The positions adopted by the parties, of course, can be expected to be informed by the outcome desired by each party.

A DAB actually makes decisions upon the disputes referred. In doing so, the board hears the two parties’ cases (as would be the case in other non-court procedures) and issues a ruling upon the issues referred. The decision of the board will be binding upon the parties if their contract so provides (but not all contracts do, meaning that a party could ignore the decision made).

Recently, certain contracts provide for

combined dispute boards (CDBs) that enable either a decision or a recommendation to be given, according to what the parties wish.

A fascinating trait of the use of DBs lies in the fact that they are able to contribute to the avoidance of disputes as well as the resolution of them. It is that feature that distinguishes DBs from other types of co-operative dispute resolution. Other mechanisms for non-court consideration of disputes direct themselves, generally, to the resolution of them by making decisions that bind the parties either because the contract so provides or because the applicable law so determines.

The advantage to the parties of procuring assistance with either avoiding disputes arising or with preventing such disagreements from escalating, should be immediately apparent. The fact that even smaller projects can involve multiple parties, cultures, languages, practices and potential conflict of laws issues exacerbates the challenges posed to those charged with bringing about their successful completion.

Further, the complexity of the contract terms that apply can add to the propensity for disagreements to ferment. This is particularly so in respect of international projects.

As to disadvantages, the fact that a multiperson board might be constituted, and that a standing board can be in place for the duration of a project means that parties will be concerned about the cost of establishing the board. It cannot be denied that DBs add certain cost to a project. However, that cost should be put into perspective.

When judged against the overall cost of a project, the added cost of a board will be extremely modest, in proportionate terms.

It is claimed that the use of DBs actually reduces the overall cost of a project, by contributing to the increased efficiency of the management of that project, and by assisting the elimination of legal costs incurred in pursuing formalised disputes in court or more traditional non-court processes.

Of course, it is entirely appropriate, and understandable, that parties nowadays seem increasingly open to the adaptation of standard DBs and other non-court procedures to create for themselves a process that exactly meets the requirements of their project, and that approach can be expected to continue.

Mark Entwistle FCIArb is a Chartered Arbitrator and a FIDIC DB listed and London Olympics Adjudicator. Email markentwistle@consultant.com THERESOLVER

August 2013 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 13

13

22/07/2013 11:16

HOW TO…

…select an arbitrator

By Mandy Moore Illustration: Cameron Law “Does he or she have a particular qualification critical to your dispute?”

S

SELECTION OF AN ARBITRATOR is one of the most important strategic decisions of an arbitration proceeding, as success can depend, in large part, on the quality of the arbitrator. Counsel must conduct the necessary due diligence to secure an arbitrator who is not only independent and impartial, but also possesses the appropriate skill set and qualifications. So what should counsel consider when selecting an arbitrator?

1 ⁄

Restrictions on who can act

Review the arbitration agreement and the applicable law as they may impose restrictions on the choice of an arbitrator by requiring, for example, that arbitrators have knowledge of a particular legal system or have particular expertise or experience.

2 ⁄

Experience and training

MORE INFO Looking to appoint an arbitrator?

CIArb-DAS can help you find a suitably qualified arbitrator with the right knowledge and experience. For any enquiries please contact Waj Khan.

Email wkhan@ciarb.org Tel + 44 (0) 20 7421 7444

Mandy Moore FCIArb is a Partner at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, based in Ottawa, Canada.

14

Ensuring that your prospective arbitrator has the appropriate expertise and training is critical. Do they have experience acting as arbitrator?

Do they have specific arbitration training such as Fellowship of CIArb? Is the arbitrator a current or former lawyer or judge? Does he or she have a particular qualification critical to your dispute such as an engineering degree or accounting designation?

3 ⁄

Availability is key

‘Big name’ arbitrators, while desirable to clients by their reputation alone, may have little to no availability to adjudicate a client’s dispute in an expedited manner and thus defeat one of the key benefits of proceeding by way of arbitration.

4 ⁄

Interview with care

The last thing you want to do is jeopardise the independence and/or impartiality of a prospective arbitrator by asking inappropriate questions or sharing views on the dispute.

Conduct an interview on the premise that the entire discussion will be disclosed to the other party to the dispute. Also take notes so you remember what was discussed.

If you choose to interview, the following areas should be covered: • The identities of the parties, counsel and witnesses (to the extent known) and a brief description of the dispute in order to permit the arbitrator to consider whether any conflicts exist and to permit them to make any necessary disclosure to the parties of conflicts or potential conflicts; • The arbitrator’s background, qualifications and experience as reflected or not on their CV; • The arbitrator’s availability; • The language, governing law, seat of and rules applicable to

the arbitration (if any), or the fact that some or all of these are not yet agreed to; • The arbitrator’s rate; • The arbitrator’s experience with the subject of the dispute, if any; • The arbitrator’s experience as sole arbitrator, party-appointed arbitrator or chair; and • The arbitrator’s willingness to act in relation to the dispute.

5 ⁄

Research your arbitrator

The questions that you cannot ask of a prospective arbitrator can often be answered, at least in part, through research. Look for any papers written, or speeches given, by the arbitrator or past arbitration awards (to the extent available) on the issues raised in the dispute. Have any of your colleagues had experience working with the prospective arbitrator? What are their views on the extent of documentary disclosure? Have they ever made a finding of gross negligence?

6 ⁄

Trust your instincts

Your clients rely upon you for your strategic judgment. After you have conducted due diligence and have a pool of prospective arbitrators, apply that judgment to your final recommendation. When an arbitrator feels right for your dispute, you will know it.

THERESOLVER | August 2013

p14_Howto.indd Sec1:14

19/07/2013 15:39

CIArb NEWS BRANCH ROUND-UP EUROPE

Happy anniversary to European Branch The European Branch celebrated its 20th anniversary at the Grand Hotel in Tremezzo, Italy, over 19-20 April.

Sixty delegates from 20 jurisdictions looked back and ahead on various ADR-related topics under the theme “Retrospective and Prospective – 20 Years of CIArb European Branch”.

Bennar Balkaya MCIArb, Chair of the Branch, and Stefano Azzali, Secretary General of the Milan Chamber of Arbitration, opened the conference. A panel of three experienced practitioners, chaired

by Wolfgang Hahnkamper MCIArb, then reflected on the achievements and developments of international arbitration and mediation over the past 20 years, and the role that the European Branch has played during that time.

Another panel, chaired by Antonio Franchi MCIArb and featuring younger practitioners, speculated on what developments could be expected over the next 20 years, with regard to arbitration

LONDON, UK

AGM is a success London Branch held a wellattended AGM at the Oxford and Cambridge Club in Pall Mall on 22 April. Branch Chair Margaret Bickford-Smith QC MCIArb gave her report on a packed year’s events, and paid tribute to the branch officers. As it was the end of her first year of office, she added special further thanks to the immediate past Branch Chair, Hew Dundas FCIArb C.Arb. Following this, the audience heard a thought-provoking keynote address from Branch Patron, Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE, who was congratulated on her recent elevation to the Court of Appeal. Dame Elizabeth spoke about the use of electronic resources in the course of hearings and case preparation.

Where it all began: the Grand Hotel was where the Branch was formed

Also in attendance were CIArb Director General Anthony Abrahams, and CIArb Trustee Board Chair John Wright FCIArb. A reception for branch members followed the AGM. SCOTLAND, UK

Police advice The Northern Scotland Chapter heard about negotiating under pressure while in the public spotlight from Superintendent Colin Brown of Police Scotland during April. Brown, who is a trained firearms and football match commander, has responsibility for key events and locations in the north of Scotland including Balmoral Castle, as well as oil and gas installations.

He set out the steps followed to save lives in suicide or hostage incidents: confront, understand,

define, seek and agree, and thus gradually reduce levels of aggression. Listening is a crucial skill and a couple of exercises illustrated the difference between simply hearing or seeing, and understanding a set of circumstances, he said.

Thanks to Wood Group Kenny for kindly hosting the event.

NORTH AMERICA

High activity The branch has been busy on a number of fronts during 2013, particularly in relation to training and technology.

On the training side, the branch held a highly successful Accelerated Route to Fellowship Course in International Arbitration, together with a Members Course in Houston in January. The branch held an

and mediation. In the afternoon, topics included the development of emergency arbitration procedures under several institutional arbitration rules, and how domestic and international arbitration has developed in Georgia, Latvia, Poland and Ukraine.

At the gala dinner, CIArb’s Director General, Anthony Abrahams MCIArb, handed Fellowship Awards to 10 members and also a Certificate as a Chartered Arbitrator to Ms Yuliya Chernykh FCIArb from Ukraine.

The next day, a panel discussed: “The other true alternatives: how dispute resolution has been impacted by Mediation and Dispute Boards.” The conference concluded with a fabulous keynote speech by Professor Phillip Capper FCIArb C.Arb on how international arbitration has developed and what can be expected in the next two decades.

Accelerated Route to Fellowship Course in International Arbitration in conjunction with JAMS in San Francisco in July. On the technology side, Lucy Greenwood FCIArb, PR Officer of the North American Branch, has set up a LinkedIn group for the branch which members are invited to join.

The branch has also supported other events. In conjunction with the Los Angeles County Bar Association and the International Center for Dispute Resolution, it supported a conference in May entitled “International Arbitration in the Pacific Rim.” Also that month, with the support of Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, members of the Texas Chapter held a networking evening at the top of Houston’s Fulbright Tower.

• For longer versions of branch news

→ www.ciarb.org/branch-news August 2013 | THERESOLVER

p15_CIArbnews.indd 15

15

19/07/2013 14:54

CIArb NEWS

Guests tuck in to their three-course lunch at London’s Paramount Restaurant

MEMBERS’ LUNCH Paramount Restaurant and Bar in London played host to this year’s CIArb Members’ Lunch on 14 May. Guests had the chance to network with fellow members, enjoy a three-course meal as well as the spectacular views from the top of the Centre Point building on Oxford Street.

CIArb President Vinayak Pradhan FCIArb C.Arb welcomed members to the event, which was kindly sponsored by Skrine law firm. Guests included distinguished members of the legal profession and Judiciary such as His Honour Judge William Birtles of the Mayor’s and City of London Court; CIArb Deputy Vice President Michael Stephens FCIArb C.Arb of St Ives Chambers; Gordon Nardell QC MCIArb, leader of the European Circuit of the Bar of England and Wales; Graham Chase FCIArb ex-president of RICS as well members of CIArb’s Disputes Appointments Service (CIArb-Das) team, headed by Waj Khan ACIArb. It was particularly gratifying to see so many faces at the lunch and everyone agreed it was a successful event, thoroughly enjoyed by all those who attended.

Anthony Abrahams, His Honour Judge William Birtles and Vinayak Pradhan

Ann Robertson FCIArb, Anthony Abrahams

Ian Hunter QC FCIArb

David Ellwood FCIArb and David Blake FCIArb

David Blake and Yvonne Hanly

nd Kam Nayee ACIArb and Arb Samantha Helps ACIArb

16

THERESOLVER | Aug August gust 2013

p16_17_CIArb lunch.indd 16

Antho Anthony o Abrahams, Pauline Paulin n Makepeace MCIArb MCIA Ar and Tony Marks s FCIArb

19/07/2013 14:26

Anthony Abrahams MCIArb, Vinayak Pradhan, Michael Stephens and Bruce Kettle MCIArb

George Palos FCIArb and Susan Hawker

Yvonne Hanly ACIArb and Anthony Abrahams

Vinayak Pradhan and Margaret BickfordSmith QC MCIArb

James Drake QC FCIArb and Gordon Bradley MCIArb

Graham Chase and David Owen QC MCIArb

WHAT THE GUESTS SAID:

“Fantastic event, really glad I came… its’ great to meet and get a chance to network with so many members from other branches” “What a brilliant venue.

The food was delicious and the views are spectacular” “Good to see so many distinguished people in the industry as ind well as senior we members of me the Judiciary attendance” in a

His Honour Judge William Birtles and Anthony Abrahams

“Great to meet “Gr fellow members fell and an engage in lively and liv intellectual in cconversation” Hew Dundas FCIArb and Paul Jensen FCIArb

p16_17_CIArb lunch.indd 17

Vinayak Pradhan

19/07/2013 14:28

WHAT’S ON

ONLINE

Further information on all professional training courses can be found at: → www.ciarb.org/course-finder Education Team • T + 44 (0)20 7421 7439 • F + 44 (0)20 7404 4023 • E education@ciarb.org

TRAINING COURSE

DATE

LOCATION

CPD POINTS

TOTAL FEE (incl. VAT)

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Introduction to ADR

24 September

UK

5

£420

Introduction to ADR

25 November

UK

5

£420

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

7 October

UK

25

£1320 €400

MEDIATION Introduction to Mediation

28 September

Poland

-

Introduction to Mediation

29 October

Kenya

-

Kshs 19,500

Introduction to Mediation

30 October

UK

5

£480

Module 3 Mediation

7 October

UK

25

£1,320

Module 4 Mediation

Open Entry

UK

0

£660

ADJUDICATION Introduction to Adjudication

30 September

UK

5

£480

Module 2 Adjudication

14 October

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 Adjudication

28 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 Adjudication

21 October

UK

12

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

28 – 29 October

UK

6

£1,320

DOMESTIC ARBITRATION Introduction to Arbitration

28 September

Kenya

-

Kshs 26,000

Introduction to Arbitration

15 October

UK

5

£480

Module 2 Arbitration

15 September

Kenya

-

Kshs 56,500

Module 2 Arbitration

14 October

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 Arbitration

13 September

Kenya

-

Kshs 58,500

Module 3 Arbitration

7 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 Arbitration

28 October

UK

12

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

28 – 29 November

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

6 – 7 November

Kenya

-

Kshs 62,000

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

18 – 19 November

UK

15.5

£1,860

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION Introduction to International Arbitration

19 September

Kenya

-

Kshs 19,500

Introduction to International Arbitration

4 November

UK

5

£480

Module 2 International Arbitration

14 October

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 International Arbitration

7 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 International Arbitration

28 October

UK

12

£1,320

Module 4 International Arbitration

28 October

Singapore

-

S$2,000

Accelerated Route to Membership

4 – 5 September

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

28 – 29 November

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

18 – 19 November

UK

15.5

£1,860

Basic, Better, Best - The Expert Witness

30 October, 19 November

UK

To be confirmed

£240

Party Advisor Course

1 October, 7 November

UK

To be confirmed

£480

Train the Trainer

15 October

UK

To be confirmed

£300

Emotion in Mediation

26 September

UK

To be confirmed

£199

From Conflict to Collaboration – How to Avoid Disputes

21 November

UK

To be confirmed

£300

Costs Workshop

2 October

UK

To be confirmed

£180

CAREER DEVELOPMENT COURSES

CIArb FLAGSHIP EVENTS Mediation Symposium 31 October 2013. Fee: £192 More details can be found at: → www.ciarb.org/conferences/6th-mediation-symposium Alexander Lecture 21 November 2013. Fee: free More details can be found at: → www.www.ciarb.org/conferences/alexander-lecture-2013

18

FEATURED COURSE Mediation Training and Accreditation Assessment 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 October 2013 Assessment: 16 October 2013 This course is aimed at candidates who would like to: • become a CIArb Member and CIArb Accredited Mediator • use mediation skills in their current profession

• represent clients in mediation • improve their leadership skills.

The training not only gives candidates the right skill set, but also prepares them for building an independent ADR practice and is therefore suited to aspiring mediators, conflict resolution professionals, and arbitrators looking to broaden their ADR offering.

THERESOLVER | August 2013

p18 What's On.indd 18

19/07/2013 15:24

Premier Arbitration suites available in central London

Room Hire CIArb, 12 Bloomsbury Square, London CIArb’s Georgian premises are located on one of London’s oldest garden squares.

Conveniently situated in central London and close to all major transport links, 12 Bloomsbury Square offers: Q 13 rooms ranging in capacity and configuration

Q Technical support

Q Accommodation arranged at special rates in local hotels

Q Catering services

Q Secure facilities available for overnight storage of hearing documents

Q Private rooms available

Q Out-of-business-hours access and weekend and evening booking

for mediations

To find out more or to book contact: Giles Andrews E: gandrews@ciarb.org T: +44 (0)20 7421 7444 W: www.ciarb.org/12bloomsburysquare/

RES.03.13.019.indd 1

19/07/2013 11:54

ARBITRATION:

TAPPING CIArb 2013 ASIA’S GROWTH

George Town, Penang, Malaysia

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION C ON FE RE N CE

22-24 August 2013

The conference, aptly titled Arbitration: Tapping Asia’s Growth, is a unique event exploring a plethora of issues and opportunities, ranging from the strategic to the tactical across

functions,

regions,

jurisdictions

as

well

as

deliberation on emerging trends. The conference will see about 250 delegates, comprising of practitioners and thought leaders, from various legal entities and arbitration centres from around the world.

Conference Theme Î Ņ ŞųŅƴĜÚå ± ŞĬ±ƋüŅųĵ ƋŅ

Î Ņ ųåāåÏƋ eŸĜ±űŸ

Î e čŅŅÚ ŞĬ±ƋüŅųĵ ƋŅ Ĭå±ųĹ

Î Ņ ±ŸŸåŸŸ ƋĘå

±ÚÚų域 ÏƚųųåĹƋ ÏŅĹÏåųĹŸØ

ÏʱĹčĜĹč ±ĹÚ ÏʱĬĬåĹčĜĹč

±ĹÚ åƻÏʱĹčå ƴĜåƵŸ ±ĹÚ

üƚĹÚ±ĵåĹƋ±ĬŸ Ņü

ĜŸŸƚåŸØ ĹååÚŸ ¼ Úåĵ±ĹÚŸ

perceptions on

Æå ƚŞÚ±ƋåÚ ŅĹ

international arbitration

Ņü ÏƚųųåĹƋ ŸƋ±ĩåĘŅĬÚåųŸ Ņü

international arbitration

ÚåƴåĬŅŞĵåĹƋŸ ĜĹ ųåĬ±ƋĜĹč

against the fresh canvas of

to International

ÚåƴåĬŅŞĜĹč űƋĜŅĹŸ

the arbitration community

eųÆĜƋų±ƋĜŅĹ X±Ƶ ±ĹÚ Practice in Asia

300 International Delegates

ƚĹ eųĜþĹ ¬±ĩ±ųĜ± Chief Justice of Malaysia

3 Fabulous Social Events

Sundaresh Menon Chief Justice of Singapore

25 Nations Represented

Vinayak Pradhan CIArb President

REGISTER NOW!

Prof. Doug Jones Partner, AO, Clayton UTZ

42 Renowned Speakers

Prof. Phillip Capper Partner, Messrs.

White & Case LLP

click here www.ciarb2013.com

For more information, please contact the Conference Secretariat at

T: +6 03 214 241 05 E: CIArb2013@fabuloustarget.com

Malaysia Branch

CIArb O R G A N I S E R

RES.03.13.020.indd 1

18/07/2013 11:35