The Resolver Spring 2014

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

Value of disputes handled by China reaches record levels Redressing the gender imbalance in the ADR profession How to write a submission CIArb's Oxford Lecture coverage Guide to training and courses May 2014

www.ciarb.org

The right plan

Why ADR is vital in development projects

p01_cover.indd 1

21/03/2014 14:28

CIArb

2014 EVENT SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF ARBITRATORS ((CIArb)) The CIArb 2014 sponsorship package offers your business the opportunity to align your brand with a long-standing, reputable organisation. Our benefits provide you with increased visibility at our most high profile events and through an array of communication channels.

SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS FOR: 7th Mediation Symposium, London, 9 October 2014 2nd Dispute Appointment Service Convention, London, 14 November 2014 Alexander Lecture, Dubai, 20 November 2014 Launch of the CIArb Dispute Appointment Service in the UAE, 23 November 2014

BENEFIT

GOLD SILVER BRONZE

£5000 £3500 £2500

Tickets to attend sponsored events Logo included on corporate signage at all events Promotional material included in delegate packs Networking opportunities with CIArb members Recognition in CIArb social media posts about the event with a reach of over 9,600 Logo on all marketing for the events Logo on ‘What is ADR’ special edition Arabic version Logo included in November issue of ‘The Resolver’ which will be distributed to over 12,750 members worldwide and also at the event Advertisement in ‘The Resolver’ which will be distributed to over 12,750 members worldwide Logo included on video for DAS Convention which will later be uploaded to CIArb YouTube channel Logo to be included on CIArb’s eSolver which is distributed to over 12,750 members worldwide Logo to be included on all marketing material for the Dispute Appointment Service launch in the UAE Recognition from Director General at the events Logo included in the dedicated event webpages on the CIArb website with average monthly hits of over 23,000 200 word feature in the dedicated event sponsors webpage on the CIArb website

In-kind sponsorship

In-kind sponsorship will also be considered where appropriate. If you are interested in an in-kind sponsorship please contact Waj Khan wkhan@ciarb.org or phone +44 (0)20 7421 7455.

Ciarb GrowYourReach280x210.indd 1

21/03/2014 14:25

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 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 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 EVENTS T: +44 (0)20 7421 7441 Waj Khan E: wkhan@ciarb.org LEGAL SERVICES T: +44 (0)20 7421 7438 Stephanie Boyce E: sboyce@ciarb.org MEMBERSHIP T: +44 (0)20 7421 7490 Waj Khan E: memberservices@ciarb.org

Michael Stephens

WELCOME TO THE SPRING ISSUE OF THE RESOLVER. I promised you in my first editorial in this magazine that I would seek to get on top of social media during the coming months. I’m pleased to report that my resolve has not slackened. I have made many contacts with members of the Institute through various channels and I am grateful to everyone for their encouraging responses. I now tweet! There is still some way to go before I reach the social-media summit, but I aim to get there. Please follow me on @PresidentCIArb. It has been a rather busy start of the year for the Institute as we continue to build our international presence. Most recently we have forged links with INCEIF – the global university for Islamic Finance – to develop courses on ADR in Islamic finance and banking. We have concentrated our efforts on working closer with emerging economies such as Brazil and, finally, we kicked off our events series with the prestigious Oxford Lecture delivered by Margaret Bickford-Smith QC MCIArb (see page 16). The lecture focused on the ‘interface between ADR and the courts’ and, if I do say so myself, justly laid the foundation for the rest to follow. If you haven’t had the pleasure of joining us thus far, then please use the upcoming President’s lunch on May 13 to network with both myself and other senior practitioners.

In this issue, you will find stimulating contributions on two key topics – planning and gender inequality from Graham Chase C.Arb and Dr Mair Coombes Davies C.Arb respectively. Both are long standing issues for ADR but they are areas of concern that the Institute is in a prime position to address.

On a separate note, you may also have seen that over the past few months the Institute has made several changes to its internal organisational structure. As we move closer to our centenary year and push ahead with our globalisation efforts, it is only fitting that we have a strong team to support the Institute’s long term goals. With that in mind, I would like to congratulate Sue McLaughlin MCIArb on her appointment as CIArb’s Associate Director of Regional Training (Europe) and Waj Khan ACIArb as Associate Director of ADR Operations.

We have forged links with INCEIF the global university for Islamic finance

Michael Stephens FCIArb President of CIArb

CONTENTS WATCH 4-5 News: Revised structure for HKIAC; CIETAC takes on an increased caseload; New arbitration service in East Anglia; JCAA amends Commercial Arbitration Rules

9

MARKETING & SPONSORSHIP, T: +44 (0)20 7421 7441 Waj Khan E: wkhan@ciarb.org POLICY T: +44 (0)20 7421 7485 Chris Wilford E: cwilford@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 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

Law round-up: Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc [2013]; Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi AS v VSC Steel Company Ltd [2013]

REGULARS AND FEATURES 6

Why are men first among equals in ADR?: Women continue to be underrepresented at senior levels of the profession, says Professor Dr Mair Coombes Davies

10 Cover: Schemes to bring landowners and developers together have a vital role in boosting the sector, but remain vulnerable to conflict, reports Graham Chase

14 15

How To… write a submission CIArb Branch news: Reception held for US launch; Joint seminar held between

16 18

CIArb Oxford Lecture: A photographic record of the March event What’s On: Round-up of upcoming training courses

London Branch and the London Maritime Arbitration Association

May 2014 | THERESOLVER

3

21/03/2014 11:26

1,285

WATCH

Days it takes Timor-Leste to resolve a commercial dispute. The country was ranked 189th – and last – for enforcing contracts in the Ease of Doing Business Index 2014

Revised structure for HKIAC The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Council has revised its organisational structure in a bid to further strengthen its services.

An Executive Committee has been established to serve as the principal body directing HKIAC activities. In addition, three standing committees established by the HKIAC Council will also operate under the auspices of the Executive Committee.

They are the Arbitration Proceedings; Appointments; and the Finance and Administration Committees. The committees will deal with HKIAC business operation matters as well as the functions entrusted to HKIAC under its arbitration rules and in accordance with its role as

GETTY

New changes will bring diversity and fresh perspectives

New council member: Joseph Wan

appointing authority under the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609).

To provide guidance and advice to HKIAC on a policy level, HKIAC has also appointed eight eminent international dispute resolution

practitioners to its International Advisory Board, including Gary Born of WilmerHale and Albert Jan van den Berg FCIArb of Hanotiau & van den Berg.

HKIAC has also added a new generation of dispute resolution practitioners to its Council membership, drawn from different jurisdictions and sectors.

New practitioners include the recently retired chief executive of Harvey Nichols, Joseph Wan C.Arb, and Jun Hee Kim MCIArb of Hyundai Heavy Industries.

HKIAC chair Teresa Cheng SC C.Arb said: “I am delighted to welcome the new members who will bring vibrant diversity and new perspectives to HKIAC as it moves towards its 30th anniversary in 2015.”

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) accepted a total of 1,256 economic and trade dispute cases in 2013. Of these, 375 were foreign-related cases and 881 domestic cases. The total is an 18.5 per cent increase (by 196 cases) compared with 2012.

Of the total, the CIETAC Beijing (headquarters) accepted 1,058 cases, up by 8.5 per cent, including 322 foreign-related cases and 736 domestic cases.

The CIETAC Secretariat Shanghai Office accepted 159 cases, up by 122 cases, including 43 foreignrelated cases and 116 domestic cases. The CIETAC Secretariat South China Office accepted 18 cases, up by two, including seven foreign-related cases and 11 domestic. Of all the domestic cases accepted by CIETAC in 2013, more than 80 per cent had foreign investment elements, with one party or both parties being 4

SHUTTERSTOCK

CIETAC takes on increased caseload

The CIETAC Secretariat Shanghai Office accepted 159 cases in 2013

foreign-invested enterprises.

The number of 2013 claims were worth RMB 24.4 billion yuan, an increase by 58 per cent on the previous year. This marks a new record, said CIETAC. “In recent years, CIETAC has ranked high among the major international arbitration institutions in terms of the number of cases handled, having made remarkable achievements in handling international and

foreign-related disputes,” it said.

“This has further improved the international influence and competitiveness of China as a venue for foreign-related commercial arbitration.’

During 2014, CIETAC has said it will “further deepen its reforms and accelerate its pace of modernisation and internationalisation, striving to make new contributions to the development of foreign-related commercial arbitration in China.

Final draft of LCIA arbitration rules is released The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) has released a final draft of its new arbitration rules to the arbitration community.

The draft has been released prior to the LCIA’s Court meeting in May, which will discuss the new rules before their formal announcement.

According to Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, the draft rules “contain some expected modernisations to improve the handling of complex disputes, such as limited provision for consolidation. The drafting committee has sought to promote procedural efficiency in line with other arbitral institutions.”

There is now a requirement that an arbitrator expressly states before appointment that he or she is “ready, willing and able to devote time, diligence and industry to ensure the expeditious conduct of the arbitration”. The tribunal will also set a timetable for the production of a final award. The current draft indicates that the LCIA is considering introducing an emergency arbitrator provision.

Herbert Smith Freehills said: “The most talked about aspect of the current draft will be the introduction of a new Annex of general conduct guidelines, which would apply to all legal representatives appearing by name before a tribunal under the LCIA rules. The current draft proposes to allow a Tribunal to sanction legal representatives for their conduct where they fail to comply with them.”

Meanwhile, the LCIA has appointed Dutch practitioner Jacomijn van Haersolte-van Hof to succeed Adrian Winstanley as its new Director General. It is the first time a non-UK national has held the role. Van Haersolte-van Hof will start the role in June.

THERESOLVER | May 2014

p04_watch..indd 4

21/03/2014 11:26

“The event was a forum for intellectual exchange” → See a selection of images from CIArb’s Oxford Lecture on pages 16-17

GETTY

JCAA amends Commercial Arbitration Rules

Attempts at mediation between Apple and Samsung to settle their dispute over smartphone and tablet patents failed in February.

A full day of mediation was held by Apple CEO Tim Cook and co-CEO of Samsung JK Shin, as well as other senior officials from both companies, to work through their two- year legal battle. Apple accused Samsung of copying the iPhone and iPad in 2011, while Samsung claimed Apple had used its technologies without permission.

As The Resolver went to press, the two sides said they were still open to the possibility of more mediation, but expectations are that the two parties will have to go to court.

Arbitration service in East Anglia A local arbitration and mediation scheme has been launched in East Anglia in the UK. CIArb’s East Anglia Branch launched the schemes at the end of February to offer a cost-effective way of resolving commercial, business-to-business and technical disputes with low fixed-price costs.

It follows in the footsteps of the Yorkshire Arbitration Scheme, launched two years ago by the North East Branch.

The East Anglia Arbitration Scheme is intended for disputes

between two parties with a value of less than £50,000. The arbitrator will charge a fixed fee of £4,000 (plus VAT where appropriate) and will adopt a fast-track procedure to deliver a reasoned award within a maximum period of 12 weeks from appointment, under the provisions of the 1996 Arbitration Act. By comparison, the mediation scheme has no financial constraints and will be applicable to all types of commercial, but not domestic, disputes. The

mediator’s fee will be fixed at £2,000 for each party, which will cover pre-mediation communication, including reading preliminary written submissions and facilitating a one-day mediation session attended by both parties. The mediation will be conducted under the CIArb Mediation Rules.

More details of the schemes can be found at: www.ciarb.org/ branches/uk/england-east-angliabranch. Or contact East Anglia Chairman Chris Gilbert C.Arb at Email cgilbert@excellolaw.co.uk

The Japan Commercial Arbitration Association ( JCAA) has recently amended its Commercial Arbitration Rules, which apply to all arbitral proceedings started on or after 1 February 2014.

The changes are intended to bring the Rules into line with updates to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules in 2010 and revisions to the rules of other arbitral institutions.

Key changes include: • additional provisions in relation to a med-arb. While the option of the same person acting as arbitrator and mediator remains, the new rules set out that the mediator/ arbitrator may not consult separately with any party unless all parties agree in writing. Where consultations do take place, the mediator/arbitrator must disclose this (but not the contents of the consultation) to the other parties; • provision for mediation with a third-party mediator to be appointed; • the introduction of emergency arbitrator procedures; • amended provisions in relation to the use of expedited procedures.

Parties can now agree to the use of a short-form procedure, potentially reducing the length of arbitrations to three months; and • new provisions intended to expedite JCAA arbitration procedure. These include a requirement for the tribunal to use “reasonable efforts” to render an award within six months of its constitution and an obligation on the tribunal to consult with the parties and produce a procedural schedule “to the extent necessary and feasible as early as practicable”.

According to law firm Hogan Lovells: “The amendments to the Rules represent a clear effort by the JCAA to improve the speed and efficiency of proceedings as well as to respond to revisions to the rules of other institutions.”

May 2014 | THERESOLVER

p05_watch.indd Sec1:5

5

21/03/2014 11:27

NEWS ANALYSIS GENDER INEQUALITY Women continue to be severely underrepresented at senior levels of the ADR profession. Why does this pose a problem and how can the imbalance be redressed, asks Professor Dr Mair Coombes Davies

Why are men the first among equals in ADR?

The Bar Council says the dropout rate for women barristers is ‘high’ 6

SHUTTERSTOCK

J

Just 18.7 per cent of CIArb’s worldwide members in 2014 are women and this figure drops to 11.7 per cent for Fellows.

Anecdotally, there is an even higher drop off for female Chartered Arbitrators and Accredited Adjudicators who number little more than a handful, though for Accredited Mediators the situation may be improving.

The figures are thoughtprovoking. However, the problem is not unique to CIArb. Is it sex discrimination or gender inequality? One of the closest professions to CIArb is the legal profession. In theory, it is one in which women should be well represented at all levels, said the Centre for Women and Democracy in its 2013 report, Sex and Power 2013. Who runs Britain? It found that 66 per cent of all students studying law in 2010/11 were female and, according to the Law Society, the number of women entering the legal profession has been steadily increasing. In 2011, 46 per cent of solicitors were women and in 2010, so were 35 per cent of barristers.

Yet, apart from at magistrate level where 51 per cent of magistrates were women in 2011, women feature relatively little at the higher levels of the judicial system, ranging from 8 per cent in the Supreme Court to 37 per cent in tribunals.

According to the Association of Women Solicitors, the dropout rate for women is twice that of men, while the Bar Council says the

dropout rate for women barristers after 10 to 12 years is, ‘high’.

The legal profession is often a popular route into politics. The figures in this area are, to a certain extent, unexpected: • Rwanda has the highest number of women parliamentarians.

UN Women, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, records that women there have won 56 per cent of seats in the lower house stating that: “30 per cent is widely considered the ‘critical mass’ for women’s representation”.

• Recently, there has been much discussion of the underrepresentation of women in the UK government. Only 23 per cent of MPs were women in 2013.

Internationally, the UK was 64th in a 2013 global league table, lagging behind most of Western Europe and also Sudan, Serbia and Iraq. UK Prime Minister David Cameron admitted in 2013 that he needed to do more to get women into government posts, adding: “My wife says that if you don’t have women in the top places, you are not just missing out on 50 per cent of the talent, you are missing out on a lot more than 50 per cent of the talent. She probably has a point.”

• The situation in the devolved assemblies of the UK is somewhat different, particularly in Wales which has 41 per cent women members of the National

Assembly for Wales, peaking in 2006 at 52 per cent.

While 36 per cent of the Scottish Parliament are women, the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly has 19 per cent women.

Is it an issue? Do we need more women in dispute resolution? The answer to both these questions is simply, yes. The lack of women is potentially damaging the future of the dispute resolution talent pipeline. There is a tremendous resource which is not being tapped. Research carried out by the Hansard Society found that women can and do bring issues to the table that may not otherwise be considered or which might wrongly be thought of as less significant.

There is a growing body of evidence, largely drawn from business, that women make a positive difference. For example, a 2011 McKinsey report Changing companies’ minds about women, said: “A bevy of research highlights strong statistical correlations among large numbers of senior women, financial performance and organisational health… companies gain hard business benefits from a more diverse

THERESOLVER | May 2014 2010 November

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 6

21/03/2014 11:27

senior team.”

While in its 2011 report The Gender Dividend: making the business case for investing in women, Deloitte stated: “In Europe, of 89 publicly traded companies with a market capitalisation of more than £150 million, those with more women in senior management and on the board had, on average, more than 10 per cent higher return on equity than those companies with the least percentage of women in

leadership... In reality, the question is not women or men, it’s how to ensure women and men are working together in decisionmaking roles.”

‘Evolving to resolve’, is the dynamic motto of CIArb now appearing on its banners, in its literature and across its work. It reflects the fact that dispute resolution is an ever-evolving process. It is also reflected in the evolution of attitudes. Gone are the days when the profession was

regarded as a traditionally male-dominated area. What is crucial is for an arbitrator, adjudicator or mediator to have a finely honed ability and expertise. It is an overriding principle that is embodied within the selection criteria used by the President of CIArb or other honorary officer when making an appointment.

The Regulations of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators 2013, together with The Guidance (the key document for the administration of the Presidential Panels of Arbitrators, Adjudicators and Mediators) state that: “The overriding principle is that all appointments shall be made with a view to selecting, May 2014 | THERESOLVER

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 7

7

21/03/2014 11:27

NEWS ANALYSIS GENDER INEQUALITY on objective criteria, a suitable person to fulfil the particular role in question and that the appointment shall not be affected by personal factors.”

To demonstrate their suitability and competence for consideration for appointment Chartered Arbitrators, Accredited Adjudicators and Accredited Mediators must hold a Panel Appointment Certificate (PAC).

The Panels Management Group supervises the grant and renewal of the certificates to suitably qualified practitioners; there are currently about 500 PAC holders. In recent years, CIArb has spent much time in evolving its education pathways for practitioners to achieve Chartered Arbitrator, Accredited Adjudicator and Accredited Mediator status.

CIArb has the ethos of fairness and equality ingrained within its core. It is applied unstintingly by its arbitrators, adjudicators and mediators to parties in dispute. It permeates through the dealings of its members’ one with another. It means that CIArb is well placed to evolve so as to effectively address the large difference in numbers between its male and female members. The question is, how?

There are a number of possible solutions to address the imbalance.

I have discussed the issue with many people, from professors, international arbitrators, aspiring and established dispute resolution professionals, to recently qualified fellows, students and young people at school. The possible solutions include the following: • ‘Positive action’. This has, anecdotally, been used effectively where women have been underrepresented, for example by political parties in their candidate selection processes. Although positive action is topical it is unlikely to be an appropriate answer for CIArb. The immediate reactions (which were probably right) of the dispute resolution Professors GR Thomas and R Shawyer to positive action, were: “I don’t believe in that.

8

The underlying problem is not being dealt with; it is being massaged over. You need to be sensitive to the individual, to make them feel comfortable and wanted and to go out to that pool where people are going to come from.”

• Education. Too often, too little is known about dispute resolution let alone CIArb. Yet once that knowledge is acquired many find it fascinating not merely because of the subject itself but also because of its flexibility (it can fit in ideally with lifestyle choices such as a career break or part time work), support (through a regional and worldwide network, regular contact both online and via The Resolver and the Journal)

Has the time come to consider rolling out mentoring to new CIArb members?

and status. Here are some examples: An international arbitrator reflecting on the path he had followed and the start of his career, “I only wish I knew then what I know now.”

Furthermore, an undergraduate studying mathematics asked: “What is an arbitrator?” I gave her an outline. Reasons why she would be interested in becoming an arbitrator soon followed: “Cases that are interesting, having a positive impact on society by applying justice, the money, feeling good about making a difference and a good support network.”

These are sentiments that many arbitrators, adjudicators or mediators would recognise. Time and again the answer to the question of, “What would help you most on your way to pursue a career in dispute resolution?”, was in the single word voiced by all the law students aged 16 and 17 years at Lewis Girls School in Gwent: ‘Knowledge.’

“At regional level there needs to be a wider and more publicised network in place to promote Fellowship and the route to Fellowship’, said Annie McCartney who was recently awarded Fellowship and is the course leader for the new MSc in Dispute Resolution course at the University of South Wales.

“The peer interview needs to be

conducted at regional level as well as national level saving expensive and time consuming travel. Busy working mothers need regional support for this.”

Many ways may need to be tried to solve the problem, from marketing through to talks. One way that deserves particularly careful thought is mentoring.

Mentoring has been used successfully on many occasions.

For example, one of its most recent uses occurred last year when an adjudicator applied for admission to the President’s Panel of Adjudicators. The interviewers found that the adjudicator was on the very cusp of achieving the required standard. The circumstances were exceptional so the Panels Management Group (which oversees the worldwide admission of arbitrators, adjudicators and mediators to the Presidential Panels) put in place a period of mentoring for the adjudicator. After which he succeeded in being admitted to the President’s Panel of Adjudicators.

A mentor can advise, guide, offer knowledge and provide opportunities for observing dispute resolution processes. All of which are fine-tuned to the needs of the individual being mentored.

Has the time has come to consider rolling out mentoring to new members of CIArb and potential dispute resolvers of the future?

A final word from an MSc student studying exploration and resource geology and heading for an industry where disputes involving, for example, oil extraction and spillage, can be valued to billions of dollars, “Advice is always useful.”

• CIArb wants to develop the debate on gender diversity in ADR. If you would like to get involved, contact Waj Khan. Email wkhan@ciarb.org • Do you agree gender inequality is an issue for the profession?

Email editorial@ciarb.org Professor Dr Mair Coombes Davies C.Arb is Head of the Dispute Resolution Division at Civitas Law.

THERESOLVER | May 2014

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 8

21/03/2014 11:27

LAW

An overview of recent key court cases

ROUND-UP THE CHALLENGE OF ADJUDICATORS’ DECISIONS: LIMITATION PERIODS APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS AND COUNTERCLAIMS (PART 2)

THE CASE ○ ADJUDICATION

Aspect Contracts (Asbestos) Ltd v Higgins Construction Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1541

IN ASPECT CONTRACTS (ASBESTOS) LTD V HIGGINS Construction Plc [2013] EWHC 1322 (TCC) (see Law round-up, The Resolver, November 2013) Akenhead J held, among other things, that the limitation period entitling the losing party to the adjudication (ASP) to recover the money that it had to pay out on the temporarily binding decision of the adjudicator was six years from the latest date when the contract was performed.

In this case, the High Court reviewed the case of Jim Ennis Construction Ltd v Premier Asphalt Ltd [2009] EWHC 1906 (TCC), in which HHJ Stephen Davies held that there was an implied term of the construction contract that an unsuccessful party to an adjudication was entitled to be repaid all sums paid by it in compliance with an adjudication if they were subsequently decided or agreed not to be due and that the cause of action for such sums accrued at the date of the original payment. Akenhead J declined to follow Jim Ennis Construction stating that there was no such implied term. ASP appealed. The court was asked to determine the following issues: 1) was it an implied term of the parties’ contract that an unsuccessful party to adjudication would be entitled to seek a final determination by litigation and, if successful, recover payment made? 2) if there was such an implied term, what was the applicable limitation period for a

claim seeking to enforce it?

3) what was the limitation period applying to HIG’s counterclaim? and 4) did ASP have a claim in restitution? ○ THE JUDGMENT

The Court of Appeal decided that 1) it is implicit that if the final determination decides that a particular party has paid too much, repayment must be made, 2) the applicable limitation period for a claim seeking to enforce the entitlement to repayment of what has been overpaid is six years from the date of overpayment, and 3) the limitation period applying to HIG’s counterclaim was six years from the alleged breach.

Whether or not ASP had a claim

in restitution was not argued. As a result, the appeal was allowed. ○ WHAT IT MEANS

This case provides further guidance on the limitation periods applicable to claims and counterclaims that pertain to the challenge of an adjudicator’s decision.

The full judgment is available at:

→ www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/ Civ/2013/1541.html

Akenhead J declined to follow Jim Ennis Construction stating that there was no such implied term

OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AN ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

THE CASE ○ ARBITRATION

Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi AS v VSC Steel Company Ltd [2013] EWHC 4071 (Comm)

HABAS (A COMPANY INCORPORATED IN TURKEY) AND VSC (a company incorporated in Hong Kong), entered into a contract for the sale of goods for shipment from Turkey to Hong Kong (the “VSC contract”). The VSC contract was subject to numerous amendments and so was the arbitration clause contained therein.

The chain of communications held during the negotiations involved Habas communicating with Steel Park, Steel Park communicating with Charter Alpha and Charter Alpha communicating with VSC and vice versa. Both Steel Park and Charter Alpha had authority to make a contract on behalf of Habas (as set out in the agency letter). No delivery of the steel was made and VSC commenced arbitration proceedings against Habas in London. Habas challenged the arbitrator’s jurisdiction together with the validity of the arbitration agreement contending that both parties contemplated that there would be a signed contract and that it would be signed by Steel Park on behalf of Habas. The arbitrator concluded that it did have substantive jurisdiction, that Habas’s agents (Steel Park and/or Charter Alpha) had ostensible authority to conclude both the VSC contract and the arbitration agreement. The arbitrator determined that Habas was in breach of contract and awarded VSC the sum of US$3,142,500 plus interest and costs. Habas applied to the court under sections 67 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and sought to challenge the arbitrator’s jurisdiction and his award. The court was asked to consider, inter alia, 1) whether there was a binding consensus to a London arbitration

agreement, 2) the applicable law, and 3) ostensible authority/actual authority/ratification. ○ THE JUDGMENT

The High Court decided that although it was agreed that it was Steel Park who would be signing the contract on behalf of Habas, it was never stated or made clear that Charter Alpha could not do so pursuant to the authority conferred on it as per the agency letter. Applying the test laid down by the Court of Appeal decision in Sulamérica for determining the law applicable to arbitration agreements, the Court held that the applicable law to this arbitration agreement was English law. The court also concluded that, as a matter of English law, it was clear that Charter Alpha and Steel Park had ostensible authority to agree the London

arbitration clause pursuant to the agency letter. Both applications were dismissed. ○ WHAT IT MEANS

This case confirms that the principle of ostensible authority applies to the formation of arbitration agreements.

The full judgment is available at:

→ www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/ Comm/2013/4071.html Both reports by Julio César Betancourt MCIArb, Head of Research and Academic Affairs and Garvey Hanchard, Interim Legal Director at CIArb

Habas applied to the court under sections 67 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996

May 2014 | THERESOLVER

p9_Law.indd 9

9

21/03/2014 11:28

PLANNING PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

A blueprint for conflict?

Property development activity in the UK is seeing a post-recession revival. Schemes to bring landowners and developers together have a vital role in boosting the sector, but they remain vulnerable to conflict. How can ADR help?

By Graham Chase Illustration: Ian Whadcock CAN WE HELP? Do you have a dispute?

CIArb now operates a property dispute appointment service, DAS-Property.

For further information Email wkhan@ciarb.org

10

IT IS ESTIMATED THAT THE PROPERTY and construction industry contributes between 11 per cent and 13 per cent of the UK’s total gross domestic product. That is about the same as the activity of the UK’s entire manufacturing industry.

This little known fact is often ignored in favour of the emotional side of the property industry, with most people’s understanding restricted to the occupation of the house or flat they live in. House builders are usually seen as land bankers; overseas investors are described as controlling land and property to the exclusion of domestic owners; the market does not produce the right product for workers to live in; and the cost of housing is prohibitive.

These soundbites may have some validity but the reality is that property is a chimera, performing very different functions. As well as an investment media and a place to live and work, it is an important factor of production.

Property development creates new buildings in the UK at a rate of 1 per cent per annum. Therefore, in broad terms, it takes a cycle of approximately 100 years to replace the standing stock of UK property.

The recent recessionary climate has significantly affected property development in every sector, particularly between 2009 and 2012. This was a time when capital to finance development was virtually unavailable, with many developers and contractors in negative territory in terms of both borrowing and equity.

As an example, in 2006 the retail property industry had a development pipeline of some 80 million square feet. By 2009, this had shrunk dramatically to around three million square feet. Over the past seven years only three shopping centres have been built and

THERESOLVER | May 2014

p10_13 cover feature.indd 10

21/03/2014 15:01

Property is a chimera. As well as an investment media and a place to live and work, it is an important factor of production

May 2014 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 11

11

21/03/2014 15:01

PLANNING PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT one major retail park has been remodelled. The 40 per cent fall in rent in high street properties in many areas outside of London and the South East has resulted in income streams no longer servicing the debt, and with loan-to-value ratios falling below critical levels it is not surprising the banks had a problem with their flawed lending models. Between 2008 and 2011, many developers and owners of property simply handed the keys back to the bank, passing the problem to them instead.

The recovery in the property construction industry since 2011 has been a welcome relief but it is not by any means universal.

Residential has led the charge especially in London and the South East together with certain regional hotspots. City of London and West End offices have forged ahead with rents in Mayfair hitting £100 per square foot and where yields are at some four per cent. The industrial and logistics sector is experiencing boom conditions especially in the South East, M11 corridor and the East Midlands. Real estate employment is now the fastest growing job sector at about 15 per cent of all new total employment. The net result has been an increase in development activity as the market tries to make up for seven lost years.

Working capital is now available but far less than required and there is significant competition. Whereas lending by banks to business has continued to fall to record lows, loans and mortgages in the residential housing sector are nearing the record peaks of 2006.

Some observers are now concerned about a repeat of the circumstances which led to the banking sector failure in September 2008.

Where has the all money come from? The government mortgage support schemes are seen by many experts as flawed and simply creating a price bubble. Whether that is true or not there is an increasing demand, but limited supply, for housing and it is inevitably leading to house prices rising rapidly.

Both residential and commercial developers know there is demand out there and the land is available but with little speculative development finance available the ability for developers to buy land out of their own cash resources is limited. True, some of the major house builders can secure revolving capital arrangements but, as much of the development market in the UK in particular in the commercial world is bespoke and undertaken by entrepreneurial development companies, the availability of capital to the general market is a critical factor.

So, how is land being brought forward for 12

The recovery in the property construction industry since 2011 has been a welcome relief development? Enter the joint venture ( JV) development agreement between landowners with the critical raw material and developers with the ability to secure planning permission, expertise in managing construction and securing the end result of a finished building.

Landowners who hold sites with inherent development value are reluctant to sell at anything less than the full residual value that the project scheme promotes. On the other hand, with the risks involved in the development process, the vagueness of the planning system, increasing instances of taxation such as the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and limited capital to tie up in a site for a few years, means developers are often unable to buy land at full value at the commencement of a project.

The JV vehicle is an ideal partnership which deals with many of the challenges of bringing land and development potential together at a stroke. However, this is not a perfect world with the vehicle undertaking the development comprising two parties who may have a common objective of maximising returns but with different criteria as to how that is achieved.

JV development agreements have been around for many years and the bringing together of landowners and developers to create a project and maximise returns for both has been common. Despite this history, disputes remain frequent between parties, especially when it comes to finalising the final price to be paid for the land to the site owner and the profit return the developer seeks to secure.

Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) as a JV vehicle have been a common legal mechanism but it is not by any means the only approach. In any event, the potential changes in taxation of LLPs by HMRC as from April 1 this year could have significant ramifications as to how such a vehicle is used in the future.

Whatever the approach adopted, the JV development agreement sets out: • the objective of the project;

• the role of the two parties, landowner and the developer; • the basis of the scheme to be developed; • the initial land value as a price or percentage of the end value of the completed scheme; • the developers profit return normally expressed as a percentage of total capital expenditure excluding the land value; • a programme to bring the scheme to fruition with an end date for the completion of various activities necessary for the scheme to be developed; • overage arrangements where super profits are made to determine the split between the landowner and developer; and • dispute resolution procedures in the event that an agreement cannot be reached on any aspect of the scheme and, in particular, a plethora of identified target criteria.

There is potentially a great deal to fall out over – and all in the quest for an outcome that demonstrates a viable project.

Strangely enough, despite its history the areas of dispute tend to be the same ones.

They include: the time it takes to enter the JV agreement; obtaining a satisfactory planning permission; and undertaking construction and completion of the scheme.

This can all take a decade with the result that the world that existed at the start of the agreement is no longer recognisable at the end of the project.

No JV development agreement is ever perfect and the importance of dispute resolution arrangements is crucial for two reasons. First, such arrangements encourage the parties to accept it is best to try to agree a position given that failure to do so will deliver the decision making into a third party’s hand.

This will often delay the project with the attendant consequences that brings. Second, the fact that the dispute resolution arrangement exists ensures that the parties work hard to maintain the discipline of the project throughout the programme so that if difficulties do arise, dispute resolution can be quickly employed.

The most common areas of dispute fall into the following categories: 1. Programme overruns 2. What is an effective planning permission 3. The definition of what is an unreasonable planning condition 4. The interpretation of planning consent such as density of development, public open space and other spatial matters 5. Costs of development and their reasonableness 6. The accuracy of the final development

THERESOLVER | May 2014

p10_13 cover feature.indd 12

21/03/2014 15:01

appraisal in terms of income, capital values and cost of the project 7. The date of which the completed project should be valued 8. Overage payments and allocation 9. The final valuation.

These areas of dispute can be complex and have a dramatic impact on viability. Viability is not simply about the project producing a profit, it is about ensuring that the land value is maximised and the profit return to the developer is appropriate and reasonable given the risk and efforts they have undertaken.

The options for dispute resolution start with the default position of the courts. Those who are experts in development appreciate that is not the most sensible solution with alternative dispute resolution options usually adopted. Adjudication may well be appropriate for construction disputes, but this is usually between the developer and contractor and not relevant for development agreements. Arbitration has its advantages in bringing the dispute to a closure through a formal and controlled procedure and in bringing reluctant parties to the table.

On the whole, arbitration tends to be the preferable route but – for speed and simple JV agreements – the independent expert route should be considered carefully. It does have drawbacks including a lack of power to support the process. The dispute resolver can also find themselves subject to a negligence claim especially where a valuation is necessary. However, the main benefit of this option is speed.

I now turn to the detail of viability, which consists of three components parts: 1. The land value reflecting the nature of the scheme to be developed with planning permission; 2. Cost incurred in creating the finalised scheme including both capital cost and interest chargeable against the capital employed including both land and construction cost; and 3. The end value and the profit return to the developer, which will vary depending upon the size of the scheme and risks, but usually ranging between

risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering that project.”

Site value, either as an input into a schemespecific appraisal or as a benchmark, is defined as follows: “Site value should equate to the market value subject to the following assumption: that the value has regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan.”

10 per cent and 25 per cent of total development costs.

Viability can mean different things to different stakeholders but usually requires a valuation.

Standards in valuation are set down by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in a manual often referred to as the Red Book but since January 2014 is now referred to as RICS Valuation – Professional Standards. The key valuation definition is that of market value (MV) which is defined as: “The estimated amount which an asset or liability should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller at an arms-length transaction, after proper marketing and where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.”

The other reference for viability is the new RICS professional guidance note for England, (first edition published in 2012) entitled Financial viability in planning.

This guidance note is aimed at all those involved in financial viability in planning, with a definitive methodology framework and set of principles that can be applied mainly to development management including the CIL and viability testing.

Financial viability for planning purposes is defined as follows: “An objective financial viability test of the ability of a development project to meet its costs including the cost of planning obligations, while ensuring an appropriate site value for the landowner and a market

When undertaking local plan or CIL (area-wide) viability testing, a second assumption needs to be applied to the site value definition: “The site value (as defined above) may need to be further adjusted to reflect the emerging policy/CIL charging level. The level of the adjustment assumes that site delivery would not be prejudiced. Where an adjustment is made, the practitioner should set out their professional opinion underlying the assumptions adopted.

These include, as a minimum, comments on the state of the market and delivery targets as at the date of assessment.”

Viability is crucial to property development but has to withstand a number of rigorous tests usually through a valuation assessment.

The development agreements that sit behind property development and viability usually recognise the complex nature of the development process and with it comes the real potential for disputes and the need for dispute resolution.

Hopefully, this article has given a brief flavour of the various factors which make property viability such a fascinating subject but a real minefield for the players in it.

Graham Chase C.Arb is Chairman at commercial and planning property specialists, Chase & Partners in London. He is also Past President and Fellow of RICS and past Chairman and current President of the Association of Town & City Management THERESOLVER

May 2014 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 13

13

21/03/2014 15:27

HOW TO…

…write a submission

By Michael Stephens ns Illustration: Cameron on Law “Your aim is to produce a document that persuades the reader to your argument”

T

THERE IS NO MORE POTENT weapon in the armoury of the advocate than the well-crafted submission, whether it stands as a skeleton argument or as the complete case to be put to the tribunal. Your aim is to produce a document that persuades (and does not patronise) the reader to your argument. It is a reasoned justification why your arguments should prevail. In effect, you are seeking to write the structure of the decision in your favour for the dispute resolver.

The production of such a submission will require rather more perspiration than inspiration. So what basic rules should be followed?

1 ⁄

Prepare and plan

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. T: +44 (0)207 421 7444.

Email wkhan@ciarb.org

Michael Stephens FCIArb is President of CIArb.

14

Know your case: the key dates, the relevant facts and the possible legal consequences. Work out the good points from the bad. Before committing your arguments to paper, what is your strategy, your battle plan?

2 ⁄

Help the reader

Identify on whose behalf the submission is produced. If you produce documents in support of your submission, consider how these are to be organised. If

a ring file is used, set them out behind dividers. Can the documents be cross-referenced to the submission? Is a separate chronology or list of characters useful to include? Are any legal authorities to be included?

3 ⁄

Smart presentation

Layout, typeface, headings and structure all matter; you want to produce a userfriendly document. Again, consider the reader. Do technical points and acronyms need to be included or explained? How can you make the submission digestible and easy to read? Names can be used and perhaps defined abbreviations; but be consistent.

Keep it stylish. Use a conventional font such as Times New Roman at 12 or 14 point with at least 1.5 line spacing. Use one side of the page and provide wide margins, so allowing room for notes. Adopt a consistent system for headings and sub-headings or for emphasis.

Use numbers for paragraphs.

Use bold or italic print for emphasis rather than underlining.

Paginate the document.

4 ⁄

Structure and content

The first paragraph is vital. What is it that you want? Why do you want it? And why should you get it? State the point; the argument

can follow. What are the issues?

Set out the facts accurately and fairly (it invariably repays you).

Which are the crucial documents and where are they to be found?

Are there legal issues that need to be addressed? Set out your submissions in a logical way.

Brevity is a virtue. Footnotes are best avoided if possible.

5 ⁄

Be clear and concise

Write in plain English, using the active voice; avoid clichés (like the plague), jargon, legalese or archaic language and long sentences that go on when they could quite easily be split into separate ones that make much more sense. Be reasonable in your submissions; overstating your case does not persuade or impress. Neither does insulting the argument of the opponent. Anticipate concerns and deal with them.

6 ⁄

What’s the conclusion?

What is it that you are asking the dispute resolver to do?

7 ⁄

Polish and review

Review and polish.

Does the submission make sense?

Is it clear, coherent and logical?

Does it persuade you?

THERESOLVER | May 2014

p14 How to write a submission.indd Sec1:14

21/03/2014 11:28

CIArb NEWS BRANCH ROUND-UP NEW YORK, USA

NORTH EAST, UK

Warm reception for launch The New York Branch, which was approved by the Board of Trustees in May 2013, was launched on September 30, 2013, with a reception hosted by Baker & McKenzie. It was attended by nearly 100 arbitrators, mediators, judges and practitioners.

Special guest Anthony Abrahams MCIArb, Director General of CIArb, marked the significance of the Institute’s presence in one of the most important venues in the world for international arbitration.

Branch officers are: Chair, Pete Michaelson C.Arb; Vice Chair, Tom Halket C.Arb; Treasurer, Charlie Moxley FCIArb; and Secretary, Irene Warshauer MCIArb. The branch organises an event or course every quarter. The first was held in December and was part of the branch’s lunch programme.

LONDON, UK

Maritime event Last December London Branch held its joint seminar with the London Maritime Arbitration Association entitled: ‘Ouch!

Costs in Shipping and general Commercial Arbitration’.

The event started with a critique of the escalating costs of arbitration, forcefully argued by reference to developing practical issues by Bruce Harris C.Arb, Past President of LMAA and Past Chairman of CIArb. Legal points and comparisons were addressed by James Drake QC C.Arb of 7KBW and the speeches concluded with a presentation by Mark Hook, head of costs at HFW. A reception was generously hosted and sponsored by HFW. On 29 January, the branch held its first seminar of the year on arbitration in the art world, entitled: ‘Art disputes and their resolution’.

Fladgate LLP kindly hosted the seminar, chaired by Branch Chair Margaret Bickford-Smith QC

Anthony Abrahams addresses members of the New York Branch

Entitled, ‘Arbitral 999/911: Emergency Relief for Problems That Will Not Wait’, it featured a video-linked transatlantic roundtable of experienced emergency arbitrators and counsels in New York, London and Paris.

A second event was hosted by Debevoise & Plimpton in February.

Entitled ‘Judicial Review of Jurisdictional Challenges in Investment Arbitration: What Should Judges Do?’, it focused on judicial interpretation of investment treaty awards and, again, featured a video-linked roundtable of panellists, this time in New York, Toronto and Paris.

MCIArb. Speakers were specialist art lawyer Paul Howcroft of Fladgate LLP, Henry Legge QC of 5 Stone Buildings and Sarah Charles from the dispute resolution department of Christie’s.

On 25 February, the second London Branch Arbitration Workshop took place at CIArb HQ at Bloomsbury Square. The event, on construction arbitration, featured workshop leaders well known in the construction law field: Roger ter Haar QC MCIArb and Anna Laney, both of Crown Office Chambers.

The workshop’s value was noted, along with its ability to supplement (as CPD) the CIArb Fellowship assessment training.

underway with a record number of nine teams who argued the case before more than 25 distinguished arbitrators from Turkey, Lithuania, Latvia, Italy and Belorussia.

A conference on ‘Advocacy in International Arbitration’ was held within the pre-moot. It was co-supported by the ICC YAF and opened by the Latvian Minister of Justice Ms Baiba Broka, Chair of the European Branch Ms Bennar Balkaya MCIArb and the Vice-Dean of the law faculty at the University of Latvia, Dr Anita Rodiņa.

Organisers extend their gratitude to its supporters and arbitrators.

EUROPE

Riga pre-moot The eigth Riga Vis International Commercial Arbitration pre-moot took place 20-22 February. It was organised by the Faculty of Law at the University of Latvia and the European Branch. This year’s got

IRELAND

Planning panel Over the past year the Ireland Branch has formed a special interest group to develop and promote mediation as a tool for the avoidance and resolution of conflicts within the planning and environmental sphere. The rationale is that environmental

Crowd pleaser The first of a new style of ‘An audience with…’ events was held for the Newcastle area of the NE Branch on 11 February. The guest speaker was barrister and arbitrator Tony Bingham C.Arb. Tony got proceedings underway by sharing his thoughts on how arbitration has changed over the years and where it may be going.

The subsequent questions from the floor allowed Tony to draw upon his extensive knowledge and experience to the benefit of the attendees. With approximately 40 attendees it was a lively evening and the format proved a real success. The proceedings were followed by wine and a light buffet when those present got the opportunity to chat with the speaker and fellow attendees.

Special thanks is reserved for Muckle LLP, which supported the event and provided the venue.

conflict mediation can supplement whatever formal decision making is required by law. The group works within existing legislative and regulatory systems while researching and advocating for change to facilitate more collaborative and non-adversarial methods of resolution.

Planning and environmental issues affect everyone whether at individual, community or business level. Environmental conflicts have been defined as “an unresolved disagreement between competing interests, which has reached the public arena, is controversial and may have political consequences”.

The Ireland Branch has established a panel of mediators trained in this area, which will provide mediation and facilitation services to decision makers, community groups and all stakeholders in such conflicts.

• For longer versions of branch news → www.ciarb.org/branch-news May 2014 | THERESOLVER

p15_CIArbnews.indd 15

15

21/03/2014 11:28

CIArb NEWS

The audience applauds the inauguration of the Arthur Marriott Room at the CIArb headquarters

OXFORD LECTURE CIArb kicked off its events series with the highly anticipated Oxford Lecture on 19 March. The event, held at 12 Bloomsbury Square, London, was designed as a forum for intellectual exchange between members and a seasoned Oxford university graduate. Delegates were given the opportunity to engage with the topic of the evening, share ideas and explore on-going changes in the ADR industry.

Guest speakers included Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and Margaret Bickford-Smith QC MCIArb, who delivered her keynote address on the ‘interface between ADR and the courts’.

The evening also offered a platform for members to pay homage to Arthur Marriott QC C.Arb, for his outstanding contributions in the field of arbitration. At the event, the Institute launched not only its new state-of-the-art ADR facilities but also its latest publication, entitled ADR, Arbitration and Mediation: A Collection of Essays.

CIArb members join in the debate

CIArb Director General Anthony Abrahams MCIArb opens the event

The official launch of ADR, Arbitration and Mediation: A Collection of Essays Delegates networking before the event

CIArb President Michael Stephens FCIArb speaking with delegates

CIArb’s longstanding brand was on show at the Oxford Lecture

This event was sponsored by CIArb Dispute Appointment Service and 12 Boomsbury Square

16

Giles Andrews MCIArb and Mohib Ali ACIArb

THERESOLVER | May 2014

p16-17 Oxford lecture.indd 16

21/03/2014 15:02

CIArb honours Arthur Marriott QC for his work in ADR

The CIArb team, joined by Lord Neuberger

Wendy Miles FCIArb and Gary Born speak to special guest Arthur Marriott

Margaret BickfordSmith QC MCIArb gives her keynote address on the ‘interface between ADR and the courts’

The room was full, with more than 80 delegates in attendance

Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom gives the opening address

Official opening of the Arthur Marriott Room

A journalist interviews a CIArb member

Julio Cesar Betancourt, Jason Crook MCIArb and Tony Canham C.Arb with Arthur Marriott QC

p16-17 Oxford lecture.indd 17

Jul Cesar Betancourt Julio MCIArb speaks to Christina MC Lockwood MCIArb about Loc his latest publication

21/03/2014 15:03

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)

Introduction to ADR

13 May

UK

5

£480

Introduction to ADR

30 September

UK

5

£480

Introduction to Mediation

10 May

TURKEY

-

TRY 350

Introduction to Mediation

16 September

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Mediation

4–12 June

UK

30

£2,400

Module 2 Mediation

13 June

UK

6

£1,560

Module 1 Mediation

9–16 October

UK

30

£2,400

Module 2 Mediation

17 October

UK

6

£1,560

Module 4 Mediation

Open entry

UK

-

£660

Introduction to Construction Adjudication

23 September

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

6 October

UK

25

£1,320

Module 2 Construction Adjudication

13 October

UK

18

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

18-19 June

UK

6

£1,320

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

MEDIATION

CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION

DOMESTIC ARBITRATION Introduction to Domestic Arbitration

30 October

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

6 October

UK

25

£1,320

Module 2 Arbitration

13 October

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 Arbitration

6 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 Domestic Arbitration

27 October

UK

12

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

19-20 November

UK

6

£1,320

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION Introduction to International Arbitration

24 May

Italy

-

€300

Introduction to International Arbitration

7 June

Ukraine

-

Contact branch

Introduction to International Arbitration

26 June

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

6 October

UK

25

£1,320

Module 2 International Arbitration

13 October

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 International Arbitration

6 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 International Arbitration

27 October

UK

12

£1,320

Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration

13–21 September

UK

36

£6,000

Accelerated Route to Membership

20–22 June

Netherlands

-

€2,000

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

21–22 May

Singapore

-

Contact branch

Accelerated Route to Membership

9–10 July

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

6–7 August

UK

15.5

£1,860

CAREER DEVELOPMENT COURSES Maria Arpa’s Dialogue Road map supported by CIArb

20–21 May

UK

TBC

£480

Avoiding Conflict in Business

14 May, 11 September

UK

5

£300

Breaking Through the Ice

14 July, 14 October

UK

5

£199

Expert Witness

3 July, 1 October

UK

5

£240

Train the Trainer

30 July, 14 October

UK

5

£300

Party Advisor

8 July, 22 October

UK

5

£480

CIArb FLAGSHIP EVENTS CIArb President’s Lunch UK 13 May 2014. Fee: £60 (inc VAT) CIArb Roebuck Lecture UK 15 May 2014. Free to members CIArb Cambridge Lecture UK 04 June 2014. Fee: £38.40 (inc VAT) More details can be found at: → www..ciarb.org/conferences

18

FEATURED COURSE Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration 13-21 September 2014 (Part one) Location: Oxford. Duration: 9 days. Fee: £6,000 13-21 September and 27 October 2014 (Parts one and two) Location: Oxford. Duration: 9 days + 4 months Fee £7,200

An internationally recognised course designed to provide a thorough understanding of the practice and procedure of international commercial arbitration and a platform to progress to CIArb Fellowship. The intensive nine-day residential course is aimed at practising lawyers, professionals and CIArb Members and Fellows who are familiar with legal reasoning and concepts and are involved in arbitration (domestic or international).

THERESOLVER | May 2014

p18 What's On.indd 18

21/03/2014 11:28

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.02.14.019.indd 1

21/03/2014 14:28

ADR, Arbitration, and Mediation: A Collection of Essays Edited by Julio César Betancourt and Jason A. Crook

Provides a single and authoritative resource containing some of the most interesting and influential articles published in the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators’ Journal in the areas of ADR, Arbitration, and Mediation.

Encompasses the views of the members of the judiciary, academia and the professional legal community with respect to the notion of ADR and its most common forms of manifestation.

Book price

£20

Offers a gestalt account of selected topics relating to the most important developments and changes in the burgeoning fields of ADR, Arbitration, and Mediation within the last thirty years.

Order your copy today by: Phone:

020 7421 7455

Email:

marketing@ciarb.org

Website: www.ciarb.org/das

Ciarb Essays 280x210.indd 1

21/03/2014 14:24