The Resolver Winter/February 2015

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

February 2015

Singapore launches International Commercial Court Cyprus hopes to become an international hub for ADR Tomorrow’s Mediator – which issues will dramatically shape the next few years?

Legal round up How to become CIArb qualified CIArb’s DAS Convention – in pictures

www.ciarb.org

Centenary special

Dr Nael Bunni What has history taught us in ADR?

p01_cover.indd 1

16/01/2015 14:59

Victor Victor P. P. Leginsky, Leginsky, Chartered Chartered Arbitrator Arbitrator Accepting Accepting appointments appointments as as Chairman, Chairman, sole sole arbitrator arbitrator or or co-arbitrator co-arbitrator Construction, energy and Construction, general contractual general

Email:

vleginsky@arbitralis.com

Email:

vleginsky@arbitralis.com

TEL:

+971 50 4573770

TEL:

+971 50 4573770

MIDDLE EAST

LONDON

PA R I S

SINGAPORE

MIDDLE EAST

LONDON

PA R I S

SINGAPORE

RES.01.15.002.indd 1

16/01/2015 15:13

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: Claire Echavarry ADVERTISING Sales manager: Rav Kang T: +44 (0)20 7880 8545 E: rav.kang@redactive.co.uk PUBLISHER Jason Grant E: jason.grant@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 Gemini Press. 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 PR & COMMUNICATION T: +44 (0)20 7421 7473 Kim Regisford E: kregisford@ciarb.org RESEARCH & ACADEMIC AFFAIRS T: +44 (0)20 7421 7434 Julio Cesar Betancourt E: jbetancourt@ciarb.org

Charles Brown

IT IS A GREAT HONOUR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE your President in 2015 in succession to Michael Stephens who represented us so well. It promises to be an exciting year and I will visit as many branches and chapters as time and budget permit to mark our Centenary.

CIArb was formed back in 1915 by a group of people who believed that arbitration was a better means of resolving disputes than litigation. They were right and our Centenary is the opportunity to promote the Institute worldwide.

Today, we have 13,000 members in more than 120 countries and 37 branches.

We are the only organisation that provides global training and accreditation in this area.

We appoint resolvers without imposing rules or procedures on the disputants. These features are unique and are a vital part of the message I will deliver this year.

The planned Centenary celebrations are very exciting. There are conferences in Birmingham (22-24 January), Hong Kong (19-21 March) and the Guildhall London (1-3 July) and I will attend as many of the other 27 confirmed branch events as possible including the regional conferences in Livingstone (Zambia), Canterbury (UK) and Singapore. I would also urge you to show your support by attending as many of these fantastic events as you can.

As I travel around the branches I will listen to your thoughts and suggestions for CIArb as it enters its second century. If I can do anything to help your branch and to promote our Institute, I will.

This year, we celebrate 100 years of achievement and we have a fantastic opportunity to tell the world who and what we are. I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible.

Let us use the Centenary to promote our Institute and develop ADR!

I will visit as many branches and chapters as time and budget permit to mark our Centenary

Charles Brown C.Arb President of CIArb

CONTENTS WATCH 4-5 News: Changes to CIArb’s Boards; the ‘early conciliation’ service at Acas gets off to a good start; Singapore’s International Commercial Court opens for business

9

EVENTS T: +44 (0)20 7421 7441 Waj Khan E: wkhan@ciarb.org

Law round-up: C-536/13 Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania); Eurocom Ltd v Siemens plc

MEMBERSHIP T: +44 (0)20 7421 7490 org Waj Khan E: memberservices@ciarb.org

REGULARS AND FEATURES

MARKETING & SPONSORSHIP, T: +44 (0)20 7421 7441 Waj Khan E: wkhan@ciarb.org

6

POLICY T: +44 (0)20 7421 7485 Chris Wilford E: cwilford@ciarb.org LEGAL SERVICES T: +44 (0)20 7421 7438 I Stephanie Boyce E: sboyce@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.indd 3

LEADER

10 14 15 16 18

Analysis: ‘Tomorrow’s mediator’ was a key theme at CIArb’s recent Mediation Symposium. But what will that encompass? The Resolver talks to four experts Cover: What has history taught us in ADR? In the Centenary year of CIArb, Professor Dr Nael Bunni offers glimpses into the past and the future How To… become CIArb qualified CIArb Branch news: New York events raise branch profile; The North America Branch celebrates its 20th birthday; Unprecedented branch attendance in Nigeria CIArb events: A photographic record of CIArb’s DAS Convention What’s On: Round-up of upcoming training courses February 2015 | THERESOLVER

3

16/01/2015 15:50

WATCH

750

The number of ADR schemes in the EU set up to deal with consumer disputes. They cover arbitration, mediation, ombudsmen and complaints boards.

Source: EC

Charles Brown

Sundra Rajoo

A big year ahead for CIArb Charles Brown to guide the Institute through its centenary CIArb welcomes Charles Brown C.Arb as its President for 2015 – its Centenary year – and also Professor Sundra Rajoo FCIArb as its new Deputy President.

Brown has been a practising lawyer for more than 40 years. He qualified as a solicitor in 1980 and, after spells as a partner in UK and international law firms, created and ran his own firm from 2005.

He retired as a solicitor in September 2014 to concentrate on his practice as an arbitrator, adjudicator, lecturer in international arbitration and adjudication and consultant advising on the avoidance and resolution of commercial disputes. Charles joined the Institute in 1980.

Meanwhile Rajoo is the current

Director of the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration and is also the Past President of the Asia Pacific Regional Arbitration Grouping. Rajoo became a fellow of CIArb in 1996 and served as Chairman of the Malaysia Branch from 2000 to 2002.

Rajoo was elected as future President at CIArb’s biennial Congress in Dubai in November.

Dr Nayla Comair-Obeid C.Arb was elected President for 2017.

CIArb has also announced big changes to the Board of Trustees.

Four have stood down – Bruce Kettle MCIArb, John Wright FCIArb, Dr Nayla Comair-Obeid and Colin Wall C.Arb. Meanwhile, Malcolm Holmes C.Arb has become Treasurer and the new Chair is Wendy Miles FCIArb. Four

new trustees have been elected, Anthony Houghton C.Arb, Michael Tonkin C.Arb, Richard Hamilton Morris FCIArb and Jonathan Wood MCIArb. Two trustees were re-elected – Christopher Ojo C.Arb and Peter Rees C.Arb. The Board Of Management stays the same except Brown is President and Holmes Treasurer.

A full listing of the members of the Boards can be found at → www.ciarb.org/about/whos-who • CIArb unveiled its new look website at the start of January to coincide with celebrating its Centenary year. The new site boasts improved navigation, a live twitter feed and devoted section highlighting the Centenary events and news. → www.ciarb.org

Positive start for ‘early’ Acas A new UK ‘early conciliation’ service set up to resolve workplace disputes before they go to employment tribunal has had a “strong start”.

Workplace expert Acas has published its first half-year update on Early Conciliation showing that it dealt with 37,404 cases from 6 April until the end of September 2014.

The law changed in April last year making it compulsory for a worker thinking of making an employment tribunal claim to contact Acas first. Acas then tries to resolve the dispute quickly without the need for legal action through the new free service.

The statistics published last November showed that 1,600 people a week contacted Acas during the first six months of the scheme.

Only 10 per cent of employees and employers turned down the offer of finding a solution without the need to go to tribunal, Acas Chief Executive Anne Sharp said.

“Early Conciliation has maintained its strong start and has given us the chance to help more people resolve their disputes early.

“The number of notifications we are receiving is in line with what we expected.”

Alexis Mourre is to become President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, it was announced in December.

Mourre will succeed John Beechey from 1 July this year, subject to ICC World Council 4

approval at its meeting in Italy in June.

Mr Mourre, a serving VicePresident of the ICC Court, said: “It is for me a great honour and privilege to have been selected to succeed John Beechey. I look

forward to building on the successes of the outgoing presidency to continue improving the quality and efficiency of the services provided by the ICC International Court of Arbitration.”

GETTY

Mourre set to succeed Beechey at ICA from July

THERESOLVER | February 2015

p04_watch..indd 4

16/01/2015 15:38

Dispute Appointment Service Convention →CIArb-DAS held its second annual convention in November, bringing

together judiciary and senior Institute members, see pages 16-17

International Commercial Court opens Singapore launched its International Commercial Court (SICC) at the start of January – taking it closer to its aim of becoming the Asian dispute resolution hub.

SICC was opened by Singapore Chief Justice and CIArb Patron Sundaresh Menon who had raised the idea of its creation in 2013 as a way to grow the legal services sector.

SICC, part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, has 11 international judges working alongside local judges.

SICC’s website describes it as enhancing “Singapore’s share of the global legal services pie without compromising its success as a seat of international arbitration as well as the recognition and acclaim enjoyed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre.

REUTERS

SICC enhances Singapore’s aim to become ‘the Asian dispute resolution hub’

SICC is part of the Supreme Court of Singapore and opened at the start of January

Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said in a speech to mark the opening of the legal year: “The establishment of an international commercial court will... build

upon and complement the success of our vibrant arbitration sector and make our judicial institutions and legal profession available to serve the regional

Cyprus must reform its domestic arbitration act to bring it in line with the international act already in place if it is to become a regional international dispute resolution centre, a conference heard.

The event held on 15 October in Nicosia and organised by CIArb Cyprus Branch was held to discuss the main requirements for the country to develop as an international hub for ADR. Other key steps required to achieve this goal, it was concluded, were for arbitral awards to be appealed at the Supreme Court; trained justices to resolve the appeals and deciding what target market the centre should be aimed at.

Delegates heard there is an appetite and need from the international and local business

ISTOCK

Cyprus hears calls for reform

Reform plans have court support

community for commercial arbitration. There is also court support, said George Erotocritou, Justice of the Supreme Court.

The country boasts high-

profile arbitrators with further talent being developed through training organised by CIArb. But these advantages are outweighed by the fact an arbitration award that is appealed can take the country’s overworked courts two to three years to resolve.

Andrew Demetriou C.Arb, Vice Chairman of CIArb Cyprus, also pointed out the problems faced by a dated domestic arbitration act, Cap 4, highlighting there was nothing to prevent it being replaced by a more modern arbitration law in line with Cyprus’ International Commercial Arbitration Law based on UNCITRAL Model Law. Reforming the law will require a concerted joint effort, the conference heard.

and the global community.

“At the same time, it will grow our legal services sector and might even expand the scope for internationalising Singapore law.”

Court-based mediation for South Africa A pilot scheme is under way in South Africa introducing court-based mediation in certain magistrate’s courts.

The project was launched last December in Gauteng and the North West.

It allows a litigant to request a mediation in writing prior to instituting legal action either by a summons or notice of motion, or after legal proceedings begin but before a judgment is given.

The new procedure aims to ensure wider access to justice and to relieve the pressure on the court system.

It is thought that court-based mediation will eventually be rolled out to other magistrate’s courts and then the high courts.

February 2015 | THERESOLVER

p05_watch.indd Sec1:5

5

16/01/2015 15:39

ANALYSIS TOMORROW’S MEDIATOR ‘Tomorrow’s mediator’ was a key theme at CIArb’s recent Mediation Symposium.

But what will that encompass?

We talk to four experts

Technology, diversity and job satisfaction Aled Davies, Founder of Mediator Academy Consistency, education and rigour

I get the sense that the market is still saturated with newly accredited mediators looking for that break 6

Every time I walk down my local high street I see a new coffee shop has sprung up. The latest coffee industry statistics show growth increasing by more than six per cent on the previous year and it is predicted to rise at a steady rate for a good few years to come. I wish I could say the same about mediation.

Well, let’s hold on a minute.

CEDR’s Sixth Mediation Audit published last year reported the commercial mediation market has grown by nine per cent per annum since 2012, indicating a slight slow down on previous years, but still heading in the right direction.

Anecdotally, I get the sense that more cases are coming through the system and yet the market is still saturated with newly accredited mediators looking for that break – which is hard to find in a market where the bulk of cases still seem to be concentrated in the hands of few.

One thing is guaranteed;

whether you order a coffee from any of the high street coffee brands or small independent coffee houses the quality will be broadly consistent. Can we confidently say the quality of mediation is consistent across the board regardless of the mediator chosen?

One of the challenges we need to resolve as a profession is how we ensure consistency and accountability. Yet accountability requires transparency, which creates a dilemma. How do we introduce that transparency and at the same time maintain the core features of confidentiality and flexibility?

In any coffee shop you’ll see the familiar options available: latte, macchiato, cappuccino.

How about mediation, do you know whether your mediator is transformative or narrative, facilitative or perish the thought, evaluative? Would you be able to discern the difference?

This is another challenge for the field of mediation going forward. We need to find ways to educate the market about all the different mediation approaches so users can make informed choices.

Which leads me to the third and final challenge for our field.

To become an accredited mediator in the UK requires 40 hours of classroom learning followed by a day of role-play assessment. To become a professional barista requires a similar investment in time: three days to learn the basics followed by a day studying ‘latte art’ and milk chemistry and a day on professional cupping. Does 40 hours for mediation training seem rigorous enough?

To put this into perspective, to become a counsellor you’ll need to have studied full time for a year.

The body of theory that underpins mediation is vast.

Mediators can draw upon theories from conflict resolution, game theory, neurophysiology and behavioural science to inform their practice, make useful interventions and support the parties’ pursuit of a just outcome. Forty hours doesn’t seem to stack up when I consider the role and responsibility of a mediator.

The market needs more confidence in both mediation and mediators. Without greater rigour in training and accrediting mediators we’ll have to be satisfied with just instant coffee!

THERESOLVER | February November2015 2010

p06-08_newsanalysis_new.indd 6

16/01/2015 15:00

Jo Holland, CEO Small Claims Mediation UK Income streams: mediating high-volume / low-value claims and yet make a decent profit Mediation, as a process, is by its nature an imaginative one and working with small claims allows us to be creative with how we deliver the service, not just the process.

There is a show called MasterChef: The Professionals, where talented head chefs are given an invention test. With nothing but kitchen scraps they are asked to turn these into a cohesive and delicious plate of food.

Some of the chefs are stumped, used to only working in the best kitchens and with the finest ingredients. And yet there are others who thrive on the challenge, using different cooking techniques and being wildly imaginative creating something wonderful out of nothing.

Can you see where I’m going with this analogy?

The mediation world is brimming with talented and skilled ‘head chefs’ working in

high-end commercial disputes.

They have the ‘luxury’ of faceto-face meetings and cost not being a factor to parties, so may consider small claims as the ‘kitchen scraps’. We, of course, view them as a feast – it is empowering to be able to break free of the confines of working in the traditional way.

Asking what our clients’ needs are and coming up with something that will meet those needs but won’t break the bank balance is key.

Proportionality has a huge bearing on our costs, accessing resources that we can use free or of little cost.

The new kid on the mediation block – online dispute resolution (ODR) – gives us flexibility. Our mediators can work from home, cutting down on overheads.

I made a plea at CIArb’s Mediation Symposium held last October for platform providers to make their technology more affordable. Until such time that happens, we continue to use telephone, email and Skype with minimum cost and maximum benefit.

In small claims we fine-tune our creative sides to give parties what they need when they need it… and I think we do it pretty well.

These are perhaps skills the ‘head

chefs’ out there don’t have?

The other day the Legal 500 fell through my letterbox.

Flicking through to see if I could spot anyone I knew I noted a few names I recognised, one of which was up there in the top echelons and who had approached me a while back asking to join the Small Claims Mediation panel!

I was curious why he would want to join us? I got in touch and reminded him that small claims equals small fees. He laughed and said he just wanted me to give him a shot.

He absolutely loves the work, it gives him an additional income stream, he can work from home and he gets to be really creative with these cases.

That’s job satisfaction!

We fine-tune our creative sides to give parties what they need when they need it and I think we do it pretty well February 2015 | THERESOLVER

p06-08_newsanalysis_new.indd 7

7

16/01/2015 15:00

ANALYSIS TOMORROW’S MEDIATOR

Colin Rule, Co-Founder of Modria.com, an online dispute resolution service provider Online dispute resolution Technology is changing our society in profound ways. Computer mediated communication is common and technology enables us to cross borders like never before. We can reach out to anyone with just a few keystrokes. It is inevitable these changes will alter the way we disagree and the way we resolve our disputes. It is also inevitable that these changes will generate new kinds of disputes.

In addition, technology is changing expectations among parties about how disputes should be resolved. Many are no longer willing to take time off work to communicate face-to-face with a mediator and the counterparty.

Instead, parties expect they should be able to report a problem at any time and get around-the-clock support to resolve it transparently and effectively. These expectations are putting pressure on the dispute resolution field to adapt, or risk a growing disconnect with the expectations of disputants.

Online dispute resolution, or ODR, is trying to respond to these challenges. It is the application of information and communications technology to the practice of dispute resolution. ODR is only 8

about 15 years old, but it has expanded rapidly alongside the increasing digitisation of society. It originally focused on transactional disputes like e-commerce and domain names, but as the tools have evolved, ODR is increasingly applied to other disputes as well, including issues that arise face-toface. The key question ODR addresses is: now that we have access to all this powerful technology, how can we leverage it to best assist parties in resolving their disputes?

Often people think of ODR as face-to-face dispute resolution over videoconferencing, but it can encompass more than that. It can enable ongoing text-based, asynchronous communications, which can be helpful in a variety of issues, from financial coordination to co-parenting management.

It can help with many of the most complex aspects in family disputes, from information sharing to scheduling, while offering online wizards and guides to aid in selfeducation and option generation.

Many national governments and international agencies have identified ODR as the future of redress in cross-border cases.

UNCITRAL, the UN agency responsible for harmonising global laws, has a permanent Working Group on ODR, and the European Union recently adopted a regulation requiring all member states to implement ODR for cross-border consumer cases by the end of 2015.

Almost every industry has been affected by the expansion of IT, from medicine to finance to entertainment. A practitioner plucked from those fields 30 years ago would find it difficult to recognise the modern equivalent in 2015. However, dispute resolution has not absorbed these changes. The challenge in front of us as a field is to navigate these transitions so that they improve the access to and effectiveness of the work that we do in helping parties find fast and fair resolutions to their disputes.

Victoria Pynchon, Co-Founder, She Negotiates Consulting and Training Diversity I’ve often been asked what lawyers and their clients are missing when they’re afraid to hire a mediator who doesn’t look like them. It’s not an easy question to answer because extolling the unique value of women or minority mediators buys into the pernicious supposition that gender or colour are more important than education, training and talent.

There are, nevertheless, two important reasons why it’s good sense to hire from the diverse pool of mediators that most lawyers appear to believe doesn’t exist. The first is your ethical and moral obligation to make the justice system more just.

Whenever I talk about the intersection of diversity and justice I picture an old New Yorker cartoon. A dog is sitting on the witness stand testifying to a jury of cats in a courtroom presided over by a cat. The picture tells us more than anything I could say about the importance of the perception that the justice system is fair for everyone.

The second reason lawyers should consider hiring from the entire pool of mediator talent, thousands of whom are women and people of colour, is efficacy.

When I was litigating “bet the company” cases, we hired the same retired judges over and over again even though we didn’t much value their work. We thought these guys were the best the mediation profession had to offer.

Perhaps more importantly, our law firm had a cozy relationship with them. We believed they’d favour us. They might have. But favouring us didn’t produce results. And we simply blamed the practice of mediation rather than its practitioners.

The failure of retired judges to help the parties settle particularly difficult disputes is not, however, a good reason to hire women or people of colour. The reason lawyers should seek out diverse mediators to help them settle cases is the same reason businesses are beginning to put more women and minorities on boards of directors.

When you put three women on a board, the company’s bottom line immediately and substantially improves. This is not because women or people of colour are better than the vast majority of directors who are white and male. It’s because we’re different. We bring different cultural points of view to the questions bedevilling business and to litigation resisting settlement. And when you’re able to take a look at a problem from a different viewpoint, you’re often able to find a solution you would otherwise have missed.

I’m almost out of mediation, having found negotiation consulting a better fit. But before I leave the ‘neutral’ scene, I want to wake lawyers up from their diversity somnambulance. Hire your mediator based on their proven skill, their education, and the depth of their experience. Ask your mediator questions about their methodology and why they believe it delivers the best results.

Choose for quality – not for colour or gender – and you will rarely go wrong.

THERESOLVER | February 2015

p06-08_newsanalysis_new.indd 8

16/01/2015 15:00

LAW

An overview of recent key court cases

ROUND-UP TOWARDS ANOTHER VIEW OF ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTIONS UNDER EU LAW

THE CASE ○ ARBITRATION

C-536/13 Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania)

A DISPUTE AROSE CONCERNING A SHAREHOLDERS’ agreement providing for a formula for calculating the price of natural gas supplied by Lietuvos dujos AB (“Lietuvos”) to the Republic of Lithuania (“Lithuania”). The agreement contained an arbitration clause. Lithuania issued court proceedings against Lietuvos demanding that it enter into negotiations with Gazprom OAO (“Gazprom”), one of the largest shareholders of Lietuvos, to determine the right price as per the shareholders’ agreement. Subsequently, Gazprom initiated arbitration proceedings under the Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and asked the arbitral tribunal to order the Lithuanian government to withdraw the action that had been brought before the Lithuanian courts. The arbitral tribunal made an award ordering the Lithuanian government to withdraw some of the requests made before the Lithuanian courts and to submit to arbitration the disputes arising out of or in connection with the shareholders’ agreement. Afterwards, Gazprom sought to enforce the award pursuant to the New York Convention (“the Convention”).

Meanwhile, the Lithuanian courts, both in the first and the second instance, were faced with competing arguments as to both the arbitrability of the dispute and the enforcement of the tribunal’s award.

On cassation, Lithuania argued that the award was tantamount to an anti-suit injunction and that its recognition and enforcement was contrary to the Brussels I Regulation as interpreted by the Court of Justice

of the European Union in Allianz and Generali Assicurazioni Generali (C-185/07, EU:C:2009:69).

Proceedings were stayed and the matter was referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

court of another member state.

Advocate General also stated that the fact that the award contained an anti-suit injunction was not sufficient ground for refusing to recognise and enforce it under the Convention.

○ THE OPINION

Advocate General Wathelet opined, among other things, that Allianz and Generali Assicurazioni Generali could not be applied to anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals, particularly, in those cases where recognition and enforcement of a given award fell within the scope of the Convention. Allianz, therefore, is limited to cases in which the anti-suit injunction is issued by a court of a member state against proceedings pending before a

○ WHAT IT MEANS

This case concerns the status of international arbitration and anti-suit injunctions within the context of EU law and the New York Convention. Although the Court of Justice may not necessarily follow the Advocate General’s opinion, it reflects the pro-arbitration stance of one of the most senior members of the Court.

The full judgment is available at:

→ www.curia.europa.eu/

FALSE STATEMENTS RELATING TO A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

THE CASE

Eurocom Ltd v Siemens Plc [2014] EWHC 3710 (TCC)

○ ADJUDICATION

A DISPUTE AROSE REGARDING THE INSTALLATION OF various communications systems at two London underground stations. The matter was referred to adjudication (“the first adjudication”) and the adjudicator, Mr Matthew Molloy, made a decision in favour of S, which led to no payment at that stage.

Over a year later, E issued a claim document (“the claim document”) requiring the claim to be satisfied by S within 28 days, failing which E would instigate adjudication proceedings. In light of S’s rejection of E’s claim, a second adjudication was commenced concerning the claim document. The application for the appointment of the relevant adjudicator contained a question as regards any potential conflict of interest. In response to this question, E’s representative, Knowles, asked that a number of individuals should not be appointed, including Mr Matthew Molloy who, in accordance with the RICS’s policy, could have been nominated in order to save costs and time. In the end, RICS nominated Mr Anthony Bingham as the adjudicator. In this adjudication (“the second adjudication”), numerous issues were dealt with, but the time periods in which the adjudication procedure was carried out were inevitably short. Eventually, Mr Bingham made a decision in favour of E. As a result, S asked RICS to provide a copy of all communications from and on behalf of E, including the above-mentioned application form. Subsequently, E made an application for summary judgment to enforce the second adjudicator’s decision against S. S resisted the said application

alleging, inter alia, that 1) the adjudicator’s appointment was invalid; 2) the adjudicator decided a dispute different to the one in the notice of adjudication and/or a dispute that had already been determined in the first adjudication; and 3) the adjudication procedure was unfair in breach of the rules of natural justice.

the court decided that he had no jurisdiction. It also found an overlap between some of the claims made in the first and the second adjudication. Finally, it decided that the procedure adopted by the adjudicator, albeit short, did not contravene the rules of natural justice.

The application was dismissed. ○ WHAT IT MEANS

○ THE JUDGMENT

Ramsey J held, among other things, that there was a very strong prima facie case that the question as to whether there was a conflict of interest so as to exclude Mr Molloy and other potential candidates was a false and deliberate statement.

Therefore, Mr Bingham’s appointment was considered to be invalid. Consequently,

False statements about a conflict of interest may lead to invalidation of the adjudicator’s appointment.

The full judgment is available at:

→ www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/ TCC/2014/3710.html Both reports by Julio César Betancourt MCIArb, Head of Research and Academic Affairs at CIArb and I Stephanie Boyce ACIArb, Director of Legal Services at CIArb. February 2015 | THERESOLVER

p9_Law.indd 9

9

16/01/2015 15:01

CENTENARY ADR PRACTICE Ancient civilisations, 17th century shipping adventures and religious teachings – just a few examples of how the past has moulded ADR practice. But what does the future hold?

What has history taught us in ADR? Article: Professor Dr Nael Bunni Photography: Conor Healey Glimpses from the past “But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The Lord said: ‘If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.’”

Tower of Babel – The Bible, Book of Genesis 11:1-9

T IS AN INEVITABLE OUTCOME that disputes will arise in contracts, particularly in complex, unique and long-term commercial contracts such as those in construction. Since the beginning of time, disputes have emerged and flourished by the language used and the methods of resolving those disputes have also had to evolve.

Islamic law chose conciliation as its preferred method and so in family disputes, the Quran, in Surat An-Nisa’ (The Women), verse 35 states with reference to disputes between husbands and wives: “If you fear a breach between them 10

twain, appoint two Hakams, one from his family and the other from hers. If they wish for peace, Allah will cause their conciliation.” Hakam is the word for conciliator.

The provision of a fair method of dispute resolution is paramount to a party’s confidence that a contract would be justly operated. Traditionally, amicable dispute resolution methods have been more popular than litigation. Arbitration has been used more extensively in the West, whereas conciliatory methods have been more commonly used in the East. Arbitrators, mediators and other

dispute resolution facilitators were traditionally wise men in their community.

Thus, in the 18th century, the Ouzel Galley Society emerged in Dublin. It was composed of merchants responsible for settling commercial disputes. Its name stemmed from a merchant vessel, the Ouzel, which was dispatched to what is now Turkey in 1695 by Ferris, Twig and Cash under Captain Massey. It was a year of war, made doubly dangerous by the activities of Algerian pirates who preyed on commercial traffic in the Mediterranean. The Ouzel did not return by the time it was

THERESOLVER | February 2015

p10_13 cover feature.indd 10

16/01/2015 15:03

February 2015 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 11

11

16/01/2015 15:03

CENTENARY ADR PRACTICE expected back and nothing was heard of her. The vessel was given up for lost at sea with all hands, and the insurance underwriters paid up on its hull and cargo. In 1700, however, the galley reappeared and cast anchor in Dublin Port. Captain Massey told how the vessel had been attacked and captured by pirates who then used her as a pirate ship, amassing enormous spoils.

Eventually, he said, the crew managed to repossess the vessel and sail home with the spoils. But the question – and ultimately the dispute – arose as to whom did the return cargo belong? It did not belong to the owners because they had been fully compensated having abandoned their interest to the insurers. Likewise, its return cargo did not belong to the underwriters because the abandonment of interest covered the vessel and its outward cargo, not the return cargo.

An action in law started in 1700. The prospect of a speedy resolution seemed extremely remote in a case as complex and as unusual as the Ouzel presented and, rather wisely, it was settled in 1705 by the submission of the matter to the arbitration of a panel of merchants. From this event arose the Ouzel Galley Society as a permanent arbitration body of merchants.

Arbitration is still the most successful method for resolving complex, technical and high value international disputes, as it provides the ultimate and finally enforceable solution. As an example, one of the most expensive and complicated arbitrations with an amount in dispute to the tune of US$1.6 billion commenced in July last year, according to The Miami Herald of 20 July 2014.

It relates to the expansion of the Panama Canal, ironically during the 100th anniversary of the formal opening of the canal in 1914.

It was only one year after that, in 1915, that the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators was founded by five professionals, including two solicitors, an architect and accountant.

Subsequently, in June 1915, a consulting engineer, Lord Headley, was appointed as President of the Institute. The aim of the Institute was “to raise the status of arbitration to the dignity of a distinct and recognised position as one of the learned professions”.

Since that time, the Institute has expanded – to more than 12,000 members – by looking further afield in its development, particularly in the mid-1980s when the Institute created a number of branches outside England and Wales. Thus began CIArb’s internationalisation.

The Institute attracted a number of renowned arbitrators from around the world 12

who were particularly fascinated by its educational role and activities and were encouraged to spread them to the four corners of the Earth. It was awarded the Royal Charter in 1979, cementing its success and popularity, which was subsequently updated in 1999 and 2005. An important milestone in the history of the Institute was reached in 1975 with the merger of the arbitration activities of the Institute and the London Court of Arbitration, thus affording the Institute a greater entry into the international arbitration arena and an invaluable opportunity to increase its public profile. They subsequently, however, parted company in 1986.

While it is accepted that the simplest and quickest way to resolve disputes is through negotiation, it is not an easy method, especially if there is a clash of personalities behind the dispute, or if in the parties’ opinion there are matters of principle at stake. In some cases, parties embark on arbitration or litigation simply because they want their day in court; in other cases some are badly advised.

Internationally, parties face additional uncertainties, problems, risks and fears.

These range from having to deal with people of different cultures, language, customs, laws and business practices, to having to select foreign lawyers to deal with a foreign judicial process about whose neutrality and independence the parties may have serious doubts.

It has been said that international commercial arbitration provides an answer to many of these issues, particularly in respect of the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards through the 1958 New York Convention and other similar international arbitral treaties. For that reason, arbitration has been chosen as the preferred forum for dispute resolution in the international field and has been influential in facilitating international trade, investment and economic development around the world for many years.

However, in the 1980s, with the availability and greater use of computer technology and as disputes became more complex with escalating disputed sums, particularly in the technology and construction sectors, some unhappy experiences in arbitration emerged that have diminished the effect of many of its advantages, not least the speed of resolution and cost effectiveness. The emergence of computerised programming; the critical path programmes and their analysis; the various methods of delay analyses, prospective and retrospective; global claims and their acceptability under different legal systems; and issues of fitness for purpose, imposed or

The aim of the Institute was ‘to raise the status of arbitration to the dignity of a distinct and recognised profession implied, added to the cost of arbitrations.

Examples of the complex issues that may arise can be seen from various cases, a recent one of which is Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Severfield-Rowen Structures Ltd [2012] EWHC 3652 (TCC). The technical and legal journals also contain examples of such experiences, which have left users disenchanted with the arbitral process and led them to search for a more attractive method of dispute resolution.

This is particularly in respect of cost effectiveness. From my own most recent 10 arbitrations, the costs of the reference and award have varied from 2.58 per cent to as much as 37 per cent of the overall value of the amounts in dispute, with an average of 12.75 per cent. For a declaratory award, the costs were €3.79 million.

Following on from the use of amicable methods of dispute resolution since the times of Babylon and Phoenicia, one solution to this problem was adopted in 1987 by the

THERESOLVER | February 2015

p10_13 cover feature.indd 12

16/01/2015 15:03

Looking to the future

International Federation of Consulting Engineers, FIDIC, in its standard form of contract, the Fourth Edition of the Red Book, in the format of amicable settlement as a prerequisite step to arbitration. Sub-clause 67.2 of that contract provided that arbitration should not be commenced unless an attempt was first made by the parties to settle the dispute amicably. A period of 56 days is allowed for such an attempt to be made, which may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Amicable dispute resolution methods are usually referred to by the acronym ‘ADR’, with ‘A’ standing for an ‘alternative’ to litigation. However, it could equally refer to appropriate, available, affable, agreeable, acceptable, or affordable, depending on the context of its use. The success of ADR has prompted many institutions to follow the example of FIDIC, such as the Institution of Civil Engineers in London, and Engineers Ireland in Dublin. It is of note that in November 1996 FIDIC went a step further with the introduction within its Supplement to the Fourth Edition of the Red Book, providing for the establishment of a Dispute Adjudication Board that is in itself another form of ADR. The idea of the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) stems from the American Dispute Review Board (DRB), which was created in the early 1970s. The Dispute Resolution Board Foundation (DRBF) was established in 1996 in the United States and helped to promote the use of the DRB process worldwide.

Since their use by FIDIC, DABs have been of immense advantage to the avoidance of

disputes, as well as their resolution, and many institutions developed rules for such boards following on from the FIDIC Rules, such as the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, CIArb and the Institution of Civil Engineers in London. The DAB Rules were first used in the Channel Tunnel project between 1987 and 1993. The cost of using the DRB or the DAB procedures, from research carried out by the DRBF, is around 0.7 per cent of the cost of the project which is a small fraction of the cost of arbitration, with the further advantage of either avoiding the occurrence of a dispute or resolving it within a much shorter period of time.

In this connection, statutory adjudication in construction was introduced in 1996 in the UK, by enacting The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, a route which was followed in various other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and, more recently, in Ireland with the introduction of the Construction Act 2013.

In the UK, it is widely believed that the adjudication process has achieved the success that was envisaged. After its introduction, the number of adjudications increased slowly, accelerated to a peak after two years, fell back by 25 per cent and has then levelled out.

For all types of adjudication, there is the problem of enforcement of the decision of the adjudicator or the DAB, which might ultimately have an impact on the attractiveness of the process, particularly in the DAB process. But let us hope for a solution in the very near future.

So, what does the future hold? To take from the Teachings in Buddhism, an old Buddhist booklet given to arbitrators, there are five notable steps to reaching a decision: • First, establish the truthfulness of the facts presented to you.

• Second, ascertain that the dispute that is to be resolved falls within your jurisdiction.

• Third, you will be required to enter into the minds of the parties to the dispute so that the judgment to be rendered will be a just and equitable one.

• Fourth, in pronouncing your decision, you should act with kindness not harshness.

• Finally, judge the dispute with sympathy.

In my view, there are a number of matters that must be added to this in future arbitrations. As explained in the ICC Arbitration Commission report published in 2007, Techniques for controlling time and costs in Arbitration, the procedures to be followed must be managed with efficiency and cost effectiveness; matters in dispute must be analysed with logic and simplicity; decisions must be rendered with speed and exigency so as not to cause either party any hardship, in time or indeed, and probably most importantly, in money. Articles 22 and 24 and Appendix IV of the present ICC Rules for Arbitration provide a further example.

To that end, I envisage that greater use of partnering agreements would be made where the contracting parties can work as a team in a spirit of trust, fairness and mutual co-operation for their benefit.

I also foresee new problems due to the escalating use of IT, one of which has already appeared in the disclosure/discovery procedures of documents. It relates to the change in communication habits of the contracting parties. The use of email instead of formal letters has meant the existence of hundreds of thousands, instead of hundreds, of related documents to a particular project with similar proportions to a specific topic that is being investigated.

So, being all people involved in dispute resolution, we must always strive to find solutions to these problems and be prepared to learn from our experiences in the past to help us solve what the future holds for us.

Professor Dr Nael Bunni C.Arb is Past President of CIArb and Visiting Professor in Construction Law and Contract Administration at Trinity College Dublin.

He has been involved in many civil and structural engineering projects around the world.

THERESOLVER

February 2015 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 13

13

16/01/2015 15:04

HOW TO…

...become CIArb qualified

By Guy Fetherstonhaugh Illustration: Cameron Law “It provided a fascinating opportunity to engage in pleasantly hard work with like-minded colleagues”

A MORE INFO CIArb membership Find out more about the benefits of becoming a CIArb member and how to qualify → www.ciarb.org/membership

Guy Fetherstonhaugh QC FCIArb HonRICS HonARBRIX is joint head of Falcon Chambers, a member of Falcon Chambers Arbitration and a member of the CIArb Presidential Property Dispute Service.

14

AS A SENIOR BARRISTER IN property chambers, I have acted as arbitrator or legal assessor to surveyor arbitrators for many years. A year ago, given the increasing appetite for ADR, and the disadvantages associated with litigation, I — along with some of my colleagues in chambers — decided to launch a formal property arbitration service. We thought it would give added authority to our offer if we qualified as Fellows of CIArb. What follows is a summary of our experience.

1 ⁄

Decide the level of training you require

As experienced lawyers, we opted for CIArb’s accelerated fellowship course, missing out some earlier stages. This is not for everyone, but it worked well for us and we did not feel ill-prepared at any stage of the training.

Find out more about CIArb’s Training Pathways at: → www.ciarb.org/ training-anddevelopment/training-pathways

2 ⁄

Consider forming a training group

A total of 17 of us in chambers were keen to become qualified, and we were gratified to

find that CIArb would come to us to present the course — with us divided into two groups — rather than us go to Bloomsbury Square. That was immensely convenient for us.

All we had to do was to provide two large training rooms and refreshments. It worked very well in practice.

3 ⁄

What does the training entail?

First, a two-day training session in the general principles of arbitration law, practice and procedure. In preparation, we were given a weighty course textbook, along with various other materials. There followed another two days on award writing – for which some preparation was required – and, finally, there was a short peer interview at the end of the course.

4 ⁄

What was the training like?

The training consists of talks, exercises, role play and tests, so it is kept varied and interesting.

Our days were very relaxed and good humoured — no doubt owing to the skills of the trainers — and provided a fascinating

opportunity to engage in pleasantly hard work with likeminded colleagues. One word of warning: there is a mass of detail to master which cannot be rushed and it is necessary to prepare well in advance to gain the maximum benefit from the training sessions.

5 ⁄

Who trains you on the course?

CIArb deputised two senior surveyor arbitrators to train us, and a further two for the awardwriting session. The trainers were skilled, experienced and knowledgeable — perfect exponents of their craft.

6 ⁄

What does the training cost?

All I can say is that we were able to negotiate advantageous rates with CIArb because we held the training in our chambers.

7 ⁄

What was the outcome?

Twelve of us have qualified as Fellows so far, with more to come. We are busily setting about arbitrating property disputes. It’s a job well done by the Institute.

THERESOLVER | February 2015

p14 How to.indd Sec1:14

16/01/2015 15:04

CIArb NEWS BRANCH ROUND-UP NEW YORK, USA

New York events raise branch profile International Arbitration Center (NYIAC), almost 100 members and supporters attended.

The second event was the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center’s Mediation and Arbitration Workshops in New York on 6-7 November.

• The New York Branch launched a website in December.

Since its establishment in September 2013, the New York Branch has firmly established CIArb’s active participation in the New York international arbitration community and significantly raised its profile there. Membership has increased by 31 per cent and it has established relationships with New York arbitral institutions and organisations.

The branch’s second annual Fall Kick-off Reception was held on 2 October. Hosted by the International Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) and New York

NORTH AMERICA

Many happy returns to NAB The North America Branch (NAB) celebrated its 20th birthday last September and combined a successful training programme with a dinner in Denver to mark the occasion. Founding members of the branch attended the dinner and special presentations were made to Harry Arkin and JJ Pierson.

NAB Chair Mandy Aylen FCIArb noted the debt of gratitude members owe to the founders and remarked on the growth the branch has experienced. Goals for 2015 include outreach to Mexico and consolidation of activities at chapter level.

NIGERIA

Soaring branch attendance

→ www.ciarbny.org Left: Shashi Dholandas of the ICDR; Alexandra Dosman of NYIAC; Richard Mattiaccio of the New York Branch; and Peter Michaelson FCIArb, Chair of the New York Branch at the second annual Fall Kick-off Reception.

from different fields and attendance was unprecedented.

The induction ceremony saw more than 100 members welcomed into various membership levels.

SOUTH EAST, UK

Event to mark CIArb presidency The branch held a successful workshop, facilitated by Finola O’Farrell QC, called ‘Arbitration: what works and what doesn’t!’ last November. This year, it will mark the Institute presidency of Charles Brown C.Arb with a conference on 18-19 September in Canterbury. The theme will be ‘Developing the delivery of ADR online’ and will include a live ODR session between New York and Canterbury. It will also hold an ADR case law update on 10 February in Reigate.

LONDON, UK

Nigeria Branch held its annual conference, Gala Nite and induction of new members in November. The conference theme was ‘ADR to the Rescue! How arbitration can grow our economy.’ The speakers were

High-profile speakers A London Branch seminar, ‘Challenges to arbitrators’ was held in December. A popular

topic with high-profile speakers, it was very well-attended; Mishcon de Reya generously hosted. The panel comprised the new Director General of the LCIA, Jacomijn van Haersolte-van Hof; the well-known Dr Julian Lew C.Arb and Karel Daele, head of Mishcon de Reya’s International Arbitration group. London Branch Chair Margaret BickfordSmith MCIArb QC moderated.

In November, the branch held a seminar, ‘Family Finance Arbitration: where are we now?

And what can we learn from commercial arbitration?’. The event was generously sponsored and hosted by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. In a first for the branch, the panel of speakers included two High Court judges, The Hon Mr Justice Eder of the Commercial Court and Mr Justice Mostyn of the Family Division, together with Grant Howell MCIArb, Chair of the Forum of Family Arbitrators, specialist family lawyer and Partner at the host firm. Margaret Bickford-Smith QC moderated.

The panel considered the history of family finance arbitration and the challenges to its expansion.

IRELAND

Legislative changes ahead Irish legislative changes are set to have a significant impact on the work of the Irish Branch.

The impact of adjudication – to be introduced via the Construction Contracts Act – is expected to be felt following the Act’s introduction in the spring.

And while there has been less progress than expected with the pending Mediation Bill, CIArb in Ireland is well placed to promote both processes when the legal framework finally changes.

The branch continues to be very active. It runs a regular ADR forum and saw its 25th edition held in January, chaired by Barrister Arran Dowling-Hussey FCIArb with speakers David Holohan and Senior Counsel Michael MacGrath looking at ADR and insurance law.

If you wish to attend or speak at a future event, email adhussey@lawlibrary.ie • For longer versions of branch news → www.ciarb.org/news-views-

events /ciarb-news/branch-news February 2015 | THERESOLVER

p15_CIArbnews.indd 15

15

16/01/2015 15:04

CIArb EVENTS 2ND ANNUAL DAS CONVENTION The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ Dispute Appointment Service (CIArb-DAS) held its second annual convention in London on 14 November 2014. The invitation-only event brought together members of the judiciary with the most senior members of the Institute to discuss ongoing developments in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and to address practical issues associated with the role performed by ADR practitioners.

This was a highly successful and ground-breaking event for the Institute with the unprecedented launch of five new initiatives. For more information on the work of CIArb-DAS, please visit:

Welcome reception at the 2014 DAS Convention

Dr Mair Coombes Davies C.Arb is interviewed by Waj Khan ACIArb

Overseas members show their support

→ www.ciarb.org/dispute-appointment-services

Full attendance

Mid-morning networking opportunity

Disputes Boards Construction Adjudication Panel

Dr Cyril Chern C.Arb

Delegates register their attendance

Relaxation at the end of a busy day

Construction Adjudication presentation

Drinks breaks provided an opportunity to network

16

THERESOLVER | February 2015

p16-17 pic spread.indd 16

16/01/2015 15:05

Questions from the audience

Mediation panel

Incoming and outgoing Presidents

Delegates pose for The Resolver

Director General Anthony Abrahams MCIArb opens conference

Delegates enjoy conversation and refreshments

John Sturrock QC leads the Mediation Panel

Attending the evening drinks

Coffee break

February 2015 | THERESOLVER

p16-17 pic spread.indd 17

17

16/01/2015 15:07

WHAT’S ON

ONLINE

Further information on all professional training courses can be found at: → www.ciarb.org/training-and-development 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

10 March

UK

5

£480

Introduction to ADR

12 May

UK

5

£480

Introduction to ADR

9 September

UK

5

£480 £480

MEDIATION Introduction to Mediation

10 February

UK

5

Module 1 Mediation

6, 7, 8, 13, 14 March

Italy

–

Contact branch

Module 1 Mediation

16, 17, 18, 19, 23 March

UK

30

£2,400

Module 2 Mediation

24 March

UK

6

£1,560

Module 4 Mediation

Open entry

UK

0

£660 £480

CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION Introduction to Construction Adjudication

12 March

UK

5

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

2 March

UK

25

£1,320

Module 2 Construction Adjudication

13 April

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 Construction Adjudication

9 March

UK

17.5

£1,860

Accelerated Route to Membership

19–20 February

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

30–31 March

UK

15.5

£1,860

DOMESTIC ARBITRATION Introduction to Domestic Arbitration

21 April

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

2 March

UK

25

£1,320

Module 3 Domestic Arbitration

9 March

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 Domestic Arbitration

30 March

UK

12

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

17–18 February

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

25–26 March

UK

15.5

£1,860

Introduction to International Arbitration

3 March

UK

5

£480

Introduction to International Arbitration

25 June

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

2 March

UK

25

£1,320

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION

Module 2 International Arbitration

9 March

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 International Arbitration

13 February

UAE

–

AED 10,000

Module 3 International Arbitration

9 March

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 International Arbitration

30 March

UK

12

£1,320

Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration

18 April

Australia

–

Contact branch

Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration Oxford

13–21 September

UK

36

£6,000

Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration Oxford (Parts 1 & 2) 13–21 September and 26 October

UK

48

£7,200

Accelerated Route to Membership

17–18 February

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

25–26 March

UK

15.5

£1,860

Avoiding Conflict in Business

23 April

UK

5

£300

Expert Witness – Basic, Better, Best

13 May

UK

5

£240

The Role of the Party Advisor

19 May

UK

5

£480

Train the Trainer

9 June

UK

5

£300

CAREER DEVELOPMENT COURSES

CIArb FLAGSHIP EVENTS CIArb Centenary Conference: the London principles 1–3 July CIArb Member full delegate package: £450.

Non Member full delegate package: £515.

CIArb Hong Kong Centenary Conference: A Century – shaping the future of arbitration 19–21 March 2015 Fees: TBC More details at: → www.ciarb.org/news-views-events

18

FEATURED COURSE Mediation Training and Accreditation Assessment 16, 17, 18, 19, 23 March. Assessment: 24 March.

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 practice offering. CPD points: 30

THERESOLVER | February 2015

p18 What's On.indd 18

16/01/2015 15:09

Premier Mediation 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.01.15.019.indd 1

16/01/2015 15:12

Challenging the status quo in Arbitration/Mediation.

Dentons. The new Global Elite law firm created by Salans, FMC and SNR Denton.* * Acritas Global Elite Law Firm Brand Index 2013 and 2014.

dentons.com Š 2014 Dentons. Dentons is a global legal practice providing services worldwide through its member firms and affiliates.

Please see dentons.com for Legal Notices.

RES.01.15.020.indd 1

16/01/2015 15:13