The Resolver Spring/May 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

May 2015

UK government to explore expanded role for mediation in boundary disputes Will the forthcoming ADR Directive really strengthen consumer rights?

How to conduct a co-mediation Legal round up Guide to training and courses

www.ciarb.org

The Principles Professor Doug Jones on CIArb’s guide to an effective arbitral seat

p01_cover.indd 1

20/03/2015 15:19

Become a Better Mediator Now Learn how to grow your Mediation Business

Instantly access over 100 hours of Mediation Master Classes, Courses and Interviews. Brought to you by the world’s

Leading Mediators and thought leaders.

LEARN FROM HIGH CALIBRE MEDIATORS Learn from experienced practitioners and international thought leaders

EARN CPD WHILE YOU LEARN Keep your professional development up to date.

Earn CPD points each time you learn

NEW MASTER CLASSES EVERY WEEK

WATCH AND LEARN ON ANY DEVICE IN YOUR OWN TIME

New and relevant Masterclasses, Courses and Features tailored just for you

Learn at your own pace, in your own time and in your own style

Join thousands of Mediators from around the world who are using MediatorAcademy.com to improve their effectiveness, keep their skills and knowledge up to date and to grow their mediation practices.

Go to MediatorAcademy.com today and start learning from the very best.

Web: www.MediatorAcademy.com Email: aled@mediatoracademy.com Tel: +44 (0)207 127 0045

RES.02.15.002.indd 1

18/03/2015 11:58

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

Charles Brown

LEADER

OUR CENTENARY CELEBRATIONS ARE UNDER WAY. London Branch was first off the mark with a reception at the Garrick Club addressed by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury who proposed a toast to the Institute. The event was attended by a galaxy of senior members of the English judiciary and ADR practitioners.

There were more than 150 delegates at our first Centenary conference which took place in Birmingham in January. After a welcome reception by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, the conference received keynote speeches from Lord Justice Jackson on the first day and Baroness Brady on the second, with excellent contributions from more than 25 other speakers. The message from the conference was clear: CIArb has a great and possibly unique opportunity in 2015 to promote the attractions of flexible ADR as the alternative to litigation, but faces challenges especially the cost and speed of dispute resolution. The other message is that our key role in the continuing development of ADR in the UK and worldwide remains the provision of high quality professional training for dispute resolvers to meet the demands of those who need ADR. Our commitment to the development of our training courses was illustrated by the arbitration course I attended in Madrid in February. I also attended a Centenary dinner of the Scottish Branch in Glasgow and the Hong Kong Centenary Conference co-ordinated by the East Asia Branch, and where the Centenary book was also launched.

I then assisted at the Vis (East) Moot and visited chapters of the branch in the region before representing the Institute at the Vis Moot in Vienna. These, together with our Young Members Group, represent vital investment in the next generation of arbitrators.

After three months as President I can report there is a wealth of goodwill towards the Institute from members and non-members alike, and a real pride in what branches can achieve. There is also the bond of lifelong friendships among members, borne of our shared belief in the virtues of ADR. So please continue to support the Centenary events and I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible.

CIArb has a great and possibly unique opportunity to promote the attractions of ADR

Charles Brown C.Arb President of CIArb

CIArb ENQUIRIES

CONTENTS WATCH 4-5 News: Mediation to resolve boundary disputes; Gary Born to replace Michael Pryles For further information, please contact: Chartered Institute of Arbitrators rs 12 Bloomsbury Square, London UK WC1A 2LP T: +44 (0)20 7421 7444 E: info@ciarb.org W: www.ciarb.org

at SIAC; Obituary: Douglas Stephenson, ‘a doyen of construction arbitration’

9

Law round-up: Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SpA & Anor [2014]; Shagang South-Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics [2015]

REGULARS AND FEATURES 6

Analysis: The EU is attempting to strengthen the rights of consumers through the use of ADR. But will the new regulations have any real impact?

10 Cover: Professor Doug Jones, Chairman of the Centenary, explains the background to the Principles — a set of guidelines that identify what makes an effective arbitral seat

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

14 15 16

How To… conduct co-mediation CIArb branch news: Australian events attract eminent practitioners CIArb events: A photographic record of CIArb’s Dubai Week conference and

18

the Birmingham Centenary Conference What’s On: Round-up of upcoming training courses

May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p03 contents_2.indd 3

3

20/03/2015 15:24

80m

WATCH

The number of consumers subject to arbitration clauses at the end of 2013 for credit card agreements in the US Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Mediation to resolve boundary disputes The UK government has announced moves to explore greater use of mediation in resolving boundary disputes between warring neighbours.

The Ministry of Justice proposed that mediation and independent expert determination might offer better solutions in boundary disputes than introducing more radical or costly reforms of the system, in Boundary Disputes – A Scoping Study, which was released earlier this year.

Judges and ministers have been concerned by the exorbitant legal costs run up by neighbour disputes in respect of boundaries and the delays caused to courts already straining under pressure.

Around 170 boundary disputes reach the court every year, the

report said. Cases typically cost between £10,000 and £50,000 but the most bitter disputes can cost significantly more. In addition, cases can take several years to resolve.

Using mediation is far more cost effective — around £1,000-£1,500 per party. It is currently only used

Gary Born to succeed Michael Pryles at SIAC Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) has appointed leading international arbitrator Gary Born (pictured) as the new President of its Court of Arbitration.

Born, Chair of the International Arbitration Practice Group at WilmerHale, takes up his post on 1 April, replacing Dr Michael Pryles AM, Founder President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration.

Born has been ranked as one of the world’s leading international arbitration practitioners for the past 20 years.

He said: “I am honoured to be succeeding Michael as President of the SIAC Court of Arbitration.

SIAC is one of the world’s pre-eminent international arbitral institutions. I look forward to working with the SIAC Court of Arbitration and the 4

in around 20 per cent of cases.

The study also revealed that boundary disputes were often caused by, or were symptoms of, personal disagreements between neighbours.

Ministers rejected the idea of compulsory mediation but were keen to look into ramping up the

role of mediation as well as independent expert determination. Plans will also consider how better and more timely information can be made available to parties in relation to boundary disputes.

CIArb has expressed its support for the plans. Director General of CIArb, Anthony Abrahams MCIArb, said: “Mediation is a consensual way for neighbour disputes to be resolved; the parties are able to negotiate their own agreement. However the heat generated by these conflicts can often make them impossible to resolve. What parties want is certainty, a rapid solution at a cost effective price. Both mediation and expert determination have these attributes.”

GETTY

CIArb support for Ministry of Justice plans with regard to warring neighbours

Final consultation for DIFC plan

Secretariat to ensure that SIAC is firmly at the forefront of international arbitration, both in Asia and worldwide.”

Five new members have been appointed to the SIAC Court of Arbitration. They are: Claudia Annacker of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Lijun Cao of Zhong Lun Law Firm, Toby Landau QC FCIArb of Essex Court Chambers, Dr Eun Young Park of Kim & Chang and Lucy Reed of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

These appointments also take effect from 1 April 2015.

Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) is a step closer to the implementation of an innovative mechanism to permit conversion of DIFC Court Judgments into arbitral awards.

On 17 December 2014, the DIFC Courts released Practice Direction Y of 2015 for a final period of consultation which, if implemented, would provide a mechanism for the conversion of a DIFC Court Judgment into a DIFC arbitral award — thereby opening up the potential international avenues of enforcement from which arbitration awards benefit.

Such a mechanism would be the first of its kind across the globe.

The conversion procedure would be available where there is a dispute over non-payment of a DIFC Court Judgment in respect of a monetary sum. Separate and distinct arbitral proceedings would take place dealing solely with the issue of non-payment

of the DIFC Court Judgment.

The award of the tribunal would, on paper, then be capable of enforcement through all internationally recognised avenues, such as the New York Convention.

Practice Direction Y of 2015 contains a concise set of referral criteria that set out the pathway through which conversion arbitral proceedings may be an available avenue for a DIFC Court Judgment creditor.

The final consultation period for Practice Direction Y of 2015 closed on 18 January 2015.

CIArb’s UAE Branch is watching with anticipation to see the next steps taken by the DIFC Courts.

This topic will no doubt feature in the quarterly seminars held by the branch as this is yet another exciting development in the evolving UAE arbitration arena.

Report by Thomas George FCIArb, Legal Consultant, DLA Piper, Dubai Office and UAE Branch Treasurer

THERESOLVER | May 2015

p04_watch..indd 4

20/03/2015 15:22

Dubai Week →CIArb closed its 2014 events programme with the Dubai Week

Conference, which included the Alexander Lecture, see pages 16-17

Douglas Stephenson (1923-2014), who died in December The practice of construction arbitration has lost one of its most affectionately respected doyens in the person of Douglas Stephenson FCIArb BSc CEng FICE FIStructE MConsE; a member also of the Society of Construction Arbitrators, who died on 26 December 2014, writes Eur Ing Professor Geoffrey Beresford Hartwell FCIArb. Douglas was the youngest of three, born to Stanley and Beatrice Stephenson in 1923 in Addiscombe, Surrey. A neighbour introduced Douglas to the world of civil engineering which he then decided was to be his future career.

In 1941, he joined the Royal Artillery, eventually becoming an Air Observation Post pilot and instructor. In 1946, he left the Army for Kings College, and left with his honours degree in 1948.

He spent his vacation with Sir Robert McAlpine & Sons Ltd. Around the same time, in December 1947, he married Peggy and their son John was born in 1948.

After graduating, he returned to McAlpine as a junior engineer, then later joined consulting engineers, architects and surveyors, Pick, Everard, Keay and Gimson. Their daughter Ann was born in 1952.

In 1957, he sought more varied work with G Maunsell and Partners in London. During his spell with them he and his family moved to Canberra, returning to England in 1963. In 1965, he was appointed Chief Engineer of Reed & Mallik, later becoming a director.

In 1972, however, an adventurous streak in Douglas tempted him to set up in private practice. At about the same time he had become a Fellow of the

Douglas Stephenson never lost touch with his roots as an engineer

Institute of Arbitrators, and turned to developing arbitration as his main specialised activity.

Having been involved in CIArb’s Introductory Course (the Charter was granted in 1979), Douglas became Course Director — many members will remember those days fondly. Having served some years on the Council, he served as Chairman of CIArb in 1986/87.

The first edition of his book on arbitration, Arbitration for Contractors, was published in 1982.

The book was updated on several occasions. Douglas also wrote Civil Engineering Claims (now with Vincent Powell-Smith FCIArb and John Redmond FCIArb).

He will be remembered for his practical, no-nonsense, engineer’s style. He always said

that if both parties left an arbitration feeling disgruntled, then he had done a good job.

He ran an annual Arbitrators’ Surgery for the Southern Branch of the Institute from 1993 until 2008. During that time, Peggy died quite suddenly in August 2001. Ann has been his constant companion to the end.

Douglas contributed much to the practice of arbitration. He had a clear view of the difference between arbitration and the court. He never lost touch with his roots as an engineer and he brought his practical skills to the arbitration table, as lay arbitrators should. Douglas Stephenson will be sadly missed.

Professor Hartwell is a former Chairman of CIArb

Now into its fourth year, the Family Law Arbitration Scheme is beginning to make a significant impact on the arbitration scene.

Family arbitration is available to resolve disputes on financial and property matters arising from marriage breakdown or other family situations. At present, it does not extend to arbitrations dealing with issues concerning children, although extension of the scheme to these is under consideration. To date, there have been in excess of 40 arbitration starts.

The Institute of Family Law Arbitrators is currently working with the courts to clarify the routes by which arbitration applications and challenges to family arbitration awards may be made, the intention being that such matters will be directed to, and dealt with by, family (rather than commercial ) judges.

Training courses for family law arbitrators (which are also suitable for those wishing to represent parties in family law arbitrations) run twice in each year. Participation in the course and successful completion of the award writing assessment leads to CIArb Membership.

Numbers on each course are limited. Further details at

→ www.ifla.org

SHUTTERSTOCK

‘A doyen of construction ADR’

Family law gaining ground in arbitration

Growth area: family disputes May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p05_watch.indd Sec1:5

5

20/03/2015 15:24

NEWS ANALYSIS CONSUMER DISPUTES EU attempts to strengthen the rights of consumers – shopping online or on the high street – promote the use of ADR. But will the new regulations have any real impact?

Will ADR make a difference to consumers?

SHUTTERSTOCK

I 6

In the UK alone, it is estimated that a total of 18.7 million problems have been experienced with goods and services purchased in the past 12 months – a 19 per cent increase compared with 2012.

The overall level of consumer detriment, according to the Consumer Engagement and Detriment Survey 2014, is estimated to be a staggering £4.15 billion.

Only half of problems were considered resolved, with more than a third reaching no resolution at all (the rest fell into the partially resolved category).

The scale of consumer problems and the increase experienced since two years ago may reflect the combination of an “increase in GDP and higher consumer spending power,” the report says. It could also be due to differences in the way consumers have self-reported their problems.

Nevertheless, the upsurge in global trade, particularly when it comes to e-commerce, has undoubtedly made consumer disputes more complex and potentially problematic.

As a result, measures to strengthen and reform consumer rights and protection are being put into place across

the EU from July. At their heart is the promotion of alternative dispute resolution schemes with the main focus being on mediation (though certainly not limited to it).

A Directive on Consumer ADR and a Regulation on Consumer Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), were first published in 2013.

EU member states must transpose most of the requirements of the directive into national law by 9 July.

The principal obligation under the directive is to ensure ADR, provided by a certified ADR body, is available for any and all contractual disputes that arise between a consumer and business. Disputes must be concluded within 90 days of receiving a complaint file (although this can be extended for highly complex disputes).

The directive excludes business against business complaints or trader against consumer complaints and it further excludes health services and providers of education.

Crucially, the use of ADR is also not compulsory.

‘Certified’ ADR bodies have to meet required standards set down by the directive such as offering a free service or one that charges just a “nominal fee”

and allowing consumers the option to submit complaints online or offline. These criteria will be monitored by a competent authority or authorities appointed in each country to ensure ADR bodies offer quality services and operate smoothly.

For online cross-border disputes, the ODR regulation obliges the Commission to establish an online platform to facilitate communication between parties and a certified ADR provider.

The prime motivators behind these measures are to improve access to justice for consumers through fair and transparent means as well as provide a boost to international trade, competition and commerce by ensuring consumers can confidently shop across the EU without the fear of having no redress in the event of a complaint.

James Walker, founder of resolver, a free, independent consumer complaints service and who has been involved in the UK consultation process to establish how the directive will apply there, explains: “I’m in the UK. If I purchase something from Germany that there is then a problem with, it is impractical for

THERESOLVER | May November 2015 2010

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 6

20/03/2015 15:24

me to go there and even more impractical for me to familiarise myself with German law.

“This directive is a back-door resolution since it is harmonising the methods for redress without having to harmonise the court system in each country. The whole process of going to court has got harder and it’s too complex for the consumer to handle. This is the alternative to help resolve issues in a more efficient way.”

The benefit of ADR schemes is underlined in a UK government report published last November that sets out the proposals for implementing the ADR Directive.

The Government Response to the Consultation on Implementing the ADR Directive and ODR Regulation states: “ADR can offer

a cheaper and quicker alternative to the courts for disputes where a consumer is not able to resolve their complaint directly with the business from whom they made their purchase.”

The report also highlights that ADR costs are between an eighth and a third of the costs of going to court, with the EC estimating that most disputes referred to ADR only take up to 90 days to resolve.

“Feedback from consumers who have used ADR tends to be positive and an EC survey indicates that 82% of businesses who have used ADR would use it again,” the report adds.

In the UK, the approach proposed for compliance is to expand the number of ADR schemes already available rather than completely sweep away

existing structures and start again. There are more than 70 schemes already operating in the UK: some mandatory, with bodies acting as an ombudsman in complex and regulated sectors such as financial or legal services, or private ADR bodies working in areas such as telecommunications. Other schemes are voluntary.

To plug the gap for sectors not currently covered by an ADR scheme, a “residual” service will be created — a single body that will be self financing to provide protection across the board.

To help consumers navigate the system, signpost them to the appropriate ADR scheme and increase awareness of ADR, a consumer complaints helpdesk will be set up for those

attempting to resolve a dispute.

The UK has joined other EU countries in deciding there will be no blanket obligation on businesses to actively participate in ADR (except in the case of regulated sectors where it remains mandatory).

Businesses will have added responsibilities but these come mainly in the form of having to provide more information to consumers.

For example, the directive only obliges all traders to inform consumers whether they have opted in to an ADR scheme.

Additionally, in the event of a complaint from a consumer that is not resolved by its internal complaints procedure the business has to inform the customer which certified ADR scheme/s are operating in their sector, even if they don’t participate themselves (see also panel).

It is this lack of teeth that is proving most controversial, with critics pointing out that it severely weakens the directive’s purpose.

Dr Pablo Cortés, senior lecturer at the School of Law, University of Leicester, says: “In circumstances where the May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 7

7

20/03/2015 15:25

NEWS ANALYSIS CONSUMER DISPUTES business decides a complaint is not upheld, but the customer wants to take it further, they only have to write to the customer to let them know about the availability of certified ADR schemes working in their sector.

“The business also has to notify them whether they have opted into any certified ADR scheme.

But if they haven’t, then that information is rather useless, which is confusing for consumers. This is one of the main concerns about the directive,” he says.

Walker agrees that realistically this won’t change much for the consumer in the short term.

“The companies that consistently deliver a good service will almost certainly get involved with the ADR schemes.

The companies that are rogues and scoundrels won’t, there is no incentive for them to become involved. So good companies will remain good companies and bad ones, bad.”

Cortés is adamant that even if this is the case, the regulations will have a positive impact by starting to raise awareness among consumers of the ADR procedure and its value in resolving disputes. He says: “Even where the business has not opted in the fact it has to notify a consumer about existing ADR schemes, this will start the education process about what is out there.

“It might help inform the choices that customers make on who they conduct business with in future or be a differentiator if two sellers are offering the same product at the same price, but one is opted into an ADR scheme.”

Cortés is also hopeful that, in time, most businesses will be persuaded to voluntarily opt in as the regulations gain momentum. He says: “There is an opportunity here. The impact of the regulations will depend on whether businesses grasp the nettle. As more businesses opt in, especially the larger ones, and 8

THE ADR DIRECTIVE & ODR REGULATION The requirements are: At Commission level: That the Commission sets up by January 2016 a free, online dispute resolution platform, a website that enables consumers to submit their complaints in a standardised format and in their own language (through a translation service). The platform will also offer a casemanagement tool that will enable certified ADR schemes to deliver their services online.

The scope is limited to e-commerce.

At member state level: • They ensure that ADR is available for all consumer complaints concerning contractual obligations between a consumer and a business.

• They designate an ODR contact point to assist with disputes submitted via the ODR platform.

• They designate one or more competent authorities to maintain and monitor a list of certified ADR providers.

At business level: • Any business legally obliged to, or that has voluntarily committed to, use a certified ADR provider to resolve disputes must provide information about the provider on its website or in their contractual terms where applicable.

• Where a dispute is unresolved, ALL businesses must inform the consumer about certified ADR providers in their sector and advise whether they participate in the scheme.

• Businesses and online marketplaces, such as eBay, engaging in e-commerce must provide a link to the ODR platform on their website. If the trader is obliged or opted in to using ADR further information must be provided. These ODR information requirements will come into force in January 2016.

This is the beginning of the process, then the focus will be how it works and what needs to be changed to improve it consumer confidence grows, it will encourage others to follow.”

Jan O’Neill, Professional Support Lawyer in the ADR team at Herbert Smith Freehills points out that the benefits are likely to be most keenly felt in jurisdictions where ADR is less well known and the infrastructure less developed. “But even where it is more established, such as the

UK, the new information requirements on traders are likely to have an impact. The availability of ADR and its potential benefits are still underrecognised among both consumers and businesses.

Obliging traders to provide information about ADR schemes, even where it is not compulsory to use them, should help raise the general profile of ADR as an alternative to litigation and encourage its wider use.”

There is no doubt that it will be a steep learning curve, however.

Walker says the full impact probably won’t be felt until there are moves to compel businesses to participate in ADR in the UK and across the EU. So, is making participation mandatory inevitable?

“The biggest problem has been the varied definition of mediation in different countries,” explains Walker. “This creates a can of worms so the EU has created a framework that allows it to be

implemented with the fewest objections at local level.

Effectively, it has become an extension of local processes. But I think it’s inevitable we will go to a mandatory phase, which I would expect to see in perhaps two to three years’ time. This is the beginning of the process, which is a hugely beneficial process, then the focus will be how it works and what needs to be changed to improve it.”

Cortés says any move to make the regulations mandatory will have to be underpinned by economic analysis and research and will be gradual.

In the meantime, businesses will have to ensure they are prepared for the changes taking place this July. “This will include ADR practitioners’ own businesses, of course,” warns O’Neill. “Where applicable, they will have to familiarise themselves with the new consumer information obligations and take steps to comply.”

THERESOLVER | May 2015

p06-08_newsanalysis.indd 8

20/03/2015 15:25

LAW

An overview of recent key court cases

ROUND-UP HOW TO DEAL WITH AN INCONSISTENT SET OF ARBITRATION CLAUSES

THE CASE ○ ARBITRATION

Transgrain Shipping BV v Deiulemar Shipping SpA & Anor [2014] EWHC 4202 (Comm)

ELENI SHIPPING LIMITED (‘E’) TIME-CHARTERED its vessel (‘the vessel’) to Deiulemar Shipping SpA (‘D’).

D sub-chartered the vessel to Transgrain Shipping BV (‘T’), which subsequently sub-chartered the vessel to Vista Shipping Limited (‘V’).

The charter parties provided for arbitration in London. However, there were two different sets of arbitration clauses that, in some respects, were inconsistent with each other. One of the arbitration clauses (clause 75) provided for the appointment of two arbitrators and an umpire in the event of disagreement. The second set of arbitration clauses (the Bimco arbitration clauses) provided for three arbitrators.

The vessel was hijacked by pirates, whereupon a dispute arose between those involved in owning and chartering the vessel. The dispute was referred to arbitration. The tribunal was composed of three arbitrators, Mr Clark and Mr Farrington (as the party-appointed arbitrators), and Mr Buchan (as the third arbitrator appointed by the party-appointed arbitrators). A further dispute arose as to whether the tribunal should have been constituted as per clause 75 rather than under the Bimco arbitration clauses. T contended that the tribunal consisted of Mr Clark and Mr Buchan, whereas D stated that the tribunal consisted of Mr Clark and Mr Farrington. In the intervening period, D was adjudged bankrupt and executed a statutory assignment of its claims against T in favour of E. The tribunal was asked to rule, inter alia, on the appointment of the

arbitrators. It concluded that the Bimco arbitration clauses prevailed over clause 75 so that the reference was to three arbitrators. T challenged the tribunal’s award under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. ○ THE JUDGMENT

The court agreed with the tribunal and decided the reference was made validly in accordance with the Bimco arbitration clauses.

The court referred to the case of Finagra v OT Africa Line, which provides guidance as to how to resolve inconsistencies between the parties’ agreed terms.

Although it did not have full regard to the principle set out in Finagra, the court held that, after having inquired into the facts of the case, the application of these clauses

was indeed consistent with the objective intention of the parties.

The application was dismissed. ○ WHAT IT MEANS

This case provides a useful illustration of the English Courts’ approach when dealing with inconsistencies between two or more arbitration clauses.

The full judgment is available at:

→ www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/ Comm/2014/4202.html

The court decided the reference was made in accordance with the Bimco arbitration clauses

IMPLIED CHOICE OF PROCEDURAL (ARBITRATION) LAW

THE CASE ○ ARBITRATION

Shagang South-Asia (Hong Kong) Trading Co Ltd v Daewoo Logistics [2015] EWHC 194 (Comm)

DAEWOO (‘D’) AGREED TO CHARTER A VESSEL TO Shagang (‘S’) so as to perform various shipments for a given period of time. A dispute arose between the parties and the matter was referred to arbitration in Hong Kong.

The final award addressed a number of issues, but the main issue was whether the arbitration was subject to the English Arbitration Act 1996 (‘the Act’) or the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance (‘the HK Ordinance’), and whether clause 19(a) of the Gencon 1994 form, Part II, applied (the said form provided for the appointment of a sole arbitrator). The arbitrator’s conclusion was that the arbitration was subject to the Act and that the Gencon form was indeed applicable.

Consequently, the arbitrator concluded that he had been properly constituted as sole arbitrator. S made an application to set aside the final award and for a declaration that the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted. S’s case was that the arbitration clause provided for arbitration in Hong Kong subject to the HK Ordinance, and therefore the arbitrator had no jurisdiction pursuant to either clause 19 or the Act. D’s case was that the arbitration clause read together with clause 19 provided for Hong Kong to be the geographical location for the arbitration, but for the arbitration to be subject to the Act, and thus English procedural law. As a result, D submitted that the award was rightly decided and the arbitrator had jurisdiction. The court went on to determine (1) whether the arbitration under the contract was subject to English or Hong Kong

procedural law, and (2) if the arbitration was subject to English procedural law, whether the appointment of the sole arbitrator was validly made.

The application was granted. ○ WHAT IT MEANS

The selection of the arbitral seat will usually determine the applicable procedural law.

○ THE JUDGMENT

In the absence of clear wording or other contrary indicia sufficient to displace the prima facie conclusion that the parties had selected a different law governing the arbitration, the court decided that it was subject to Hong Kong rather than English procedural law. It referred to The Braes of Doune Wind Farm case, which provides guidance concerning the relationship between the parties’ choice of procedural law and the place of arbitration. As a result, it also held that the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted.

The full judgment is available at:

→ www. bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/ Comm/2015/194.html Both reports by Julio César Betancourt MCIArb, Head of Research and Academic Affairs at CIArb and I Stephanie Boyce MCIArb, Director of Legal Services at CIArb.

The court decided it was subject to Hong Kong rather than English procedural law

May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p9_Law.indd 9

9

20/03/2015 15:25

10

THERESOLVER | May 2015

p10_13 cover feature.indd 10

20/03/2015 15:26

CENTENARY THE PRINCIPLES

Principles for the next 100 years Professor Doug Jones, Chairman of the Centenary, explains the background to the Principles — a set of guidelines that will be launched at CIArb’s London Centenary Conference — and which identify what makes an effective arbitral seat

AS PART OF CIARB’S CENTENARY programme and its commitment to the development of ADR, it is launching a set of Principles that identify what makes an effective arbitral seat. The guidelines – expected to be the first simplified statement of its type – bring together all the elements required to maintain or create a successful and attractive seat of arbitration. They will be launched and debated at the CIArb London Centenary Conference, held over 1-3 July, before being finalised for wider publication.

CIArb Chairman of the Centenary Doug Jones has been involved in drawing up the Principles. He explains the background to them and why they are set to be an important reference point, guiding debate and assisting development of international commercial arbitration.

Why are there a growing number of seats of arbitration?

Interview: Rima Evans Photography: Tom Campbell

For the past century ‘traditional’ seats of arbitration (the place that determines the arbitration law that applies to an international commercial arbitration) have been largely based in Europe; London, Paris, Geneva, Zurich and Stockholm have been the significant seats.

Over the past 20 to 30 years, global trade flows have been stronger within Asia so the development of new seats of arbitration, particularly in Singapore, Hong Kong, Seoul and Sydney, have emerged.

May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 11

11

20/03/2015 15:27

CENTENARY THE PRINCIPLES A seat of arbitration that is used by parties as a neutral place to have their disputes decided (in other words a place that is foreign to each of them) brings with it, if successfully established, a very significant amount of economic activity.

The value to London, for instance, of being a major centre for international commercial arbitration is enormous in terms of monetary value and can be measured in the billions.

Consequently, this has led to cities around the world seeking to establish themselves as potential seats of arbitration. As such, there is a degree of national economic interest in the development of centres for international commercial arbitration.

Why is the choice of seat of arbitration an important decision for parties and representatives?

The seat is a critical choice in international arbitration. With it comes the applicable international arbitration law and a range of other important characteristics such as court support and familiarity with the process and convenience. A good seat can make a big difference.

What will the Principles seek to establish?

The London Centenary conference is designed to revisit what makes a seat of arbitration attractive and successful. There are two perspectives. For the more traditional seats such as London this offers an opportunity to re-evaluate whether or not the key features of a successful seat are being maintained and preserved. Do they continue to perform and are they staying competitive?

But these issues are also particularly relevant for places around the world that are developing in terms of international commercial arbitration – aspiring areas, rather than those that already have established seats.

This includes Africa, the Americas and parts of Asia such as Delhi, Mumbai, Hanoi, Tokyo, Jakarta, Taiwan and China (where internally there are more arbitrations than any other area in the world).

The arbitration Principles are intended to provide a series of benchmarks against which it can be judged whether or not these particular places meet the criteria for being a successful and effective seat of arbitration.

They will help parties choose the seats, but also help countries and cities to undertake processes of reform and development to achieve the status as effective seat for 12

international commercial arbitration. It is like a mirror in which cities and countries can assess how they measure up or decide what more they need to do. It will raise standards in established seats and develop international arbitration in places where it is just a gleam in the eye.

Who has been responsible for drawing up the initial Principles?

An eminent group of 14 arbitration practitioners from around the world – all leaders in their own right in this field - has been working for more than 12 months to establish the set of draft Principles. Leadership has been provided by The Rt Hon the Lord Goldsmith QC, whose inspiration it was to draw up these Principles.

The working group includes myself, Judith Gill QC FCIArb, Julian Lew QC FCIArb, Constantine Partasides QC, Karyl Nairn QC FCIArb, Toby Landau QC FCIArb, The Hon Sir Vivian Ramsey, Wendy Miles QC FCIArb, Peter Rees QC FCIArb, Dr Maxi Scherer, Audley Sheppard QC, Lise Boseman and Anthony Abrahams MCIArb. Their work has been significant and their contribution very much appreciated.

Why have the Principles been drawn up now?

There are a number of conferences organised to mark the CIArb’s centenary and a number of events in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Africa. For the London Centenary conference we thought it valuable to organise an event that would have a lasting impact on the international arbitration scene. To my knowledge, this is the first time such Principles have been put together in a simple statement setting out all of the things that are required to make a satisfactory and successful seat. It is an important contribution to the development of international arbitration and the maintenance of effective international arbitration.

Are the guidelines finalised and agreed upon?

The Principles will be published for delegates at the London conference but the idea is that these will be a focus for debate, so they are not set in stone. Our intention is not to descend from the mount with the commandments but to expose the draft for debate.

What are the main themes of the guidelines? (see also panel) There are quite a few because an effective seat of arbitration is a multi-faceted thing. It is a combination of things both practical and theoretical. It’s not just law, it’s the practise

Our intention is not to descend from the mount with commandments but to expose the draft for debate of law. It’s the development of legal training, it’s the capacity for free access geographically to places by those seeking to undertake international commercial dispute resolution.

It’s also the cost-effectiveness, the independence and expertise of the judiciary at those places. There is a range of issues working together like a ticking clock. It’s not enough to have just one of these and then claim it’s a good seat. You might have a great law, for example, but an ineffective judiciary or vice versa.

Each of the topics at the conference will address some aspects of the Principles then develop and debate them.

One session, for example, is on Model Law. This will debate whether the English Arbitration Act and, say, the French Arbitration Act should be bespoke as they are or whether they should follow the UNCITRAL Model Law as many countries elsewhere in the world do. Is London leading the way by having its bespoke, specialised arbitration act or should it join the rest of the world?

The debate will be around what is best practice in legislative provision for

THERESOLVER | May 2015

p10_13 cover feature.indd 12

20/03/2015 15:27

THE PRINCIPLES COVER… Law Judiciary Legal expertise Education Right of representation Accessibility and safety Facilities Ethics Enforceability Immunity

arbitration. Another session is on ‘National courts and arbitration: collaboration or competition’. This is intended to debate what national courts must do to contribute to the effectiveness of arbitration seats.

A further topic examines the role of the state in protecting the system of arbitration.

What do the countries that seek to develop seats of arbitration need to do from a state perspective to encourage and develop commercial arbitration within their jurisdiction? This is a combination of factors.

There is the public policy issue of whether the country wants to be an international place of dispute resolution. If so, how does the country encourage that?

• How does it deal with provisions in relation to the legal profession?

• How does it deal with arranging visas for people that want to get in and out of the country if they want to run their disputes there?

• What respect should be engendered in the legal system and other public policy instruments to enforce decision of arbitral decisions made elsewhere in the world and sought to be enforced in that particular country?

The challenge around costs is another persistent issue. Part of the benchmarking against which one judges whether a place is an effective seat is what it costs to run arbitrations there. Again this is a combination of issues not just what lawyers charge.

What is also important is an understanding of the ethics agenda and what recognition there is of the ethical behaviour that needs to accompany representation in international arbitration. What ethical frameworks are there in a particular country dealing with those that practise internal commercial arbitration as opposed to those that practise

law in the local courts? What do the local Bar rules say about arbitration? Many say nothing but is it necessary that they do? Where should that development go in the future?

After the conference, what is the next step?

The Principles will be finalised, then published, along with the discussion from contributions made at the conference on each aspect of the points. It’s intended we will draw from the debate at the conference. The aim is that they will be a point of reference for development, debate and judgment in future. The individual Principles will all have their own life because they cover so much.

Will the Principles set the scene for the next centenary?

They will set the scene for the next 100 years of the contribution of the Institute to learning and development of alternative dispute resolution around the world.

What key issues do you see as dominating the ADR field, particularly arbitration, for the next 100 years?

The continued effectiveness of private methods of dispute resolution in the context of the rapid development around the world of state systems of dispute resolution such as state court systems of binding dispute resolution and mediation is a real issue.

How to maintain the effectiveness of parties finding ways to resolve their disputes themselves – outside existing state structures – has dominated the history of arbitration for centuries, if not millennia. How to do that in a globalising economy and world is going to be a real challenge. Will parties work

independently or are they going to be doing it as part of some globally organised structure that has at its core the motivation of states to control things?

There is a competitive impact on private dispute resolution of international commercial courts such as the High Court in London and the new International Commercial Court in Singapore. It could be said that arbitration has enjoyed a golden era because of the New York Convention that makes arbitral awards enforceable around the world. But, as regions such as the EU develop arrangements for the enforceability of judgments across state boundaries, the monopoly that arbitration has enjoyed may become less effective. It may then have to rely on characteristics other than its enforceability to remain competitive and viable. What other added value can it provide?

Still, arbitration seems to have been effective since ancient Greece, if not before, so history tells us it will remain relevant.

Professor Doug Jones AO C.Arb is former President of CIArb and the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, President of DRBF Region 3 and a member of the LCIA Court.

He is a leading international arbitrator.

• The London Centenary Conference is being held at the London Guildhall from 1-3 July.

It will gather leading members of the judiciary from around the world, key users, government policy makers, and eminent practitioners in the field.

To find out more, or to book, visit

→ www.ciarb.org/centenary/conference-lon THERESOLVER

NOTICE OF CIARB AGM The Institute’s AGM will be held at 12 Bloomsbury Square London WC1A 2LP on Thursday 4 June at 5.30 pm. The notice for the AGM and accompanying documentation will be available on → www.ciarb.org from 8 May 2015.

An email reminder will be sent to members on that date. Only members who have paid their subscriptions will be entitled to attend and vote. Please ensure your email address is correct through your MyCIArb account and update as necessary.

May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p10_13 cover feature.indd 13

13

20/03/2015 15:28

HOW TO…

...conduct co-mediation

By David Richbell and Jane Gunn nn Illustration: Cameron Law

“We would say that we have the ideal pairing.

Former lawyer/non-lawyer, male/female and both with years of experience”

A

ALTHOUGH CO-MEDIATION MEDIATION is common in other strands of mediation, particularly community mediation, it is rarely used in the mediation of commercial disputes. The reasons are not clear – possibly it is the (false) assumption that the fees are double. One thing is sure, when it is used the advantages are great, particularly for multi-party cases.

It is important to clarify what we mean by co-mediation. It is not a lead mediator having an assistant.

It is not a lead mediator having an expert alongside. It is two lead mediators working in harmony together with the focus on the parties’ needs. The ‘working in harmony’ part is important.

1 ⁄

Consider the advantages to parties

MORE INFO Looking to appoint a mediator?

CIArb-Das can help you find a suitably qualified mediator with the right knowledge and experience. For any enquiries please contact Waj Khan. T: +44 (0) 207 421 7444.

Email wkhan@ciarb.org

David Richbell FCIArb is a commercial mediator and trainer. He is the author of How to master commercial mediation, published by Bloomsbury Professional.

Jane Gunn FCIArb is a former City solicitor and now a full time mediator.

14

The obvious advantage, whether co-mediating multi-party mediations or not, is having two pairs of ears and eyes and minds.

The interpretation of comments, body language and strategies can be different and usefully shared.

In addition, there can be different specialisms or backgrounds, so one may be more experienced in the area of the dispute, the other may have a legal background. Our pairing combines male/female, former lawyer/non-lawyer.

2 ⁄

Cut out the ‘idle’ time

Co-mediation offers added value in cases where there are more than three parties. One of the weaknesses of mediation is the idle time – parties alone in their room while the mediator is with the other side. In multiparty cases there is a danger of parties disengaging and feeling that their time could be better spent elsewhere.

There are strategies a mediator may use – keeping everyone together, grouping some parties together and/or setting realistic tasks – but idle time is still a challenge both for the mediator and the parties.

Co-mediation can reduce that problem. Experienced mediators can work separately with different parties and so halve the time it takes to ‘do the circuit’.

We have a system, agreed at the start, whereby we meet every hour, on the hour, for a fiveminute catch-up. That way we ensure we are all heading in the right direction and know what is going on in the other room(s).

3 ⁄

Be aware of the downside

There is one, potentially serious, downside to this arrangement and that is each

mediator di t b becomes ffamiliar ili with ith only some of the parties. No matter how efficient the hourly catch-up, knowledge is only partial. On balance, though, the upsides more than outweigh this downside.

4 ⁄

Get the pairing right

We would say that we have the ideal pairing. Former lawyer/ non-lawyer, male/female and both with years of experience.

The dangerous pairing is an ad hoc bringing together of two well-known mediators who are used to mediating alone.

The danger of two strong egos being in competition is great. Mediators who are used to working alone – and being in charge – can clash rather than working harmoniously.

It can divert the focus from the parties being at the centre of the mediation.

If the pairing is not established (and few are) then care needs to be taken to ensure the chosen mediators have empathy and fit naturally together.

A good pairing will bring more than the sum of their individual experience, will have an instinctive understanding of each other and will enjoy being together.

THERESOLVER | May 2015

p14 How to.indd Sec1:14

20/03/2015 15:28

CIArb NEWS BRANCH ROUND-UP AUSTRALIA

Events attract eminent practitioners CIArb Australia has hosted several events in recent months featuring many eminent practitioners, including CIArb Australia Patron, The Hon Murray Gleeson AC QC, Karyl Nairn QC FCIArb, Dr Gavan Griffith AO QC and Professor Doug Jones AO C.Arb. Professional development courses have also been conducted across Australia, including the Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration, held in

Karyl Nairn QC, Albert Monichino QC and Caroline Kenny QC: “In Conversation with Karyl Nairn QC,” 30 July 2014, Melbourne

LONDON, UK

NORTH AMERICA

Joint seminar with SCMA

Cayman Islands training courses

On 15 January the London Branch held a reception at the Garrick Club to mark the start of CIArb’s Centenary Year. Keynote speaker and guest of honour was President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury.

The event was introduced by the Branch Chair, Margaret Bickford-Smith QC MCIArb. Lord Neuberger addressed two topics: mediation which he said was now more greatly established; and arbitration on which he reinforced the support given by the Courts to the arbitral process and decisions.

The Chair gave a vote of thanks to Lord Neuberger and to all those who arranged the event.

The branch also held a seminar in February on the topic of ‘Developing your mediation practice’. The event was held jointly with SCMA. The panel comprised Paul Rose C.Arb of London Branch, Nigel Frost, a director of Jeffrey Green Russell, His Honour Nicholas Chambers QC FCIArb and Andrew Goodman FCIArb. Moderator and chair was London Branch chair Margaret Bickford Smith QC. The four speakers gave their views on how to impress clients and how to attract appointments.

The North America Branch (NAB) recently conducted three training programmes in the Cayman Islands: Accelerated Route to Fellowship, Accelerated Route to Membership and Introduction to International Arbitration. Course Director John W Garman FCIArb said: “They were a rousing success with attorneys attending from Canada, Belgium, Ireland, UK and the US.” The NAB also played a prominent role at the second annual ITA-IEL joint conference on International Energy Arbitration in Houston, Texas, during January 15-16, as both a luncheon sponsor and as a demonstrator.

The next training programme for Members and Fellows is scheduled for the Washington DC area in July. For details

→ email jwg@garmanlaw.com NEW YORK, USA

UNIDROIT principles On February 25, the New York Branch, in conjunction with SICANA, Inc./ICC International Court of Arbitration, the College

Sydney and organised by Co-course Directors Malcolm Holmes QC FCIArb, CIArb Australia Trustee and Albert Monichino QC FCIArb, CIArb Australia President.

The branch’s CIArb Centenary celebrations were launched in Melbourne on 5 March, with guest speaker Neil Kaplan QC FCIArb. The Centenary coincides with the 20-year anniversary of CIArb Australia. To commemorate this,

CIArb Australia commissioned a multi-media project documenting the history of the branch. It was unveiled at the Melbourne launch, and will be rolled out at Centenary celebrations around the country in the forthcoming months.

The Centenary celebrations will culminate with a gala dinner on 24 November at the Museum for Contemporary Art, as part of Sydney Arbitration Week. More details at → www.ciarb.net.au

of Commercial Arbitrators, the New York International Arbitration Center, CIArb Washington, DC Chapter and European Branch, and host, Squire Patton Boggs, held a two-hour introductory programme on the 2010 UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts. The programme took place in video-linked Squire Patton Boggs offices in New York, Washington DC, London, Paris, Berlin and Frankfurt. UNIDROIT Principles Working Group participants spoke from four of the locations.

The event attracted more than 50 participants in New York and DC, and 25 participants in each of the European venues. The 2010 UNIDROIT Principles Working Group participants who spoke included Professors M Joachim Bonell, Chair, Principles Working Group from the University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Neil B Cohen from Brooklyn Law School, Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson, from Panthéon-Assas Paris II, Henry D Gabriel FCIArb from Elon University School of Law, Alejandro M Garro from Columbia Law School and Eckart Brödermann FCIArb from the University of Hamburg. Richard L Mattiaccio from Squire Patton Boggs organised the programme.

CARIBBEAN

New chapters on the horizon in the Caribbean Caribbean Branch elected a new and larger executive committee at its AGM in 2014. It now includes members from Trinidad, Jamaica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, British Virgin Islands and Antigua.

An application has been submitted to the Director General and Board of Trustees for approval to form a chapter in St Vincent and the Grenadines and it is hoped a new chapter will also be formed in Jamaica.

The branch will host a week of CIArb centennial activities at the Faculty of Law at Mona, University of West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica, from 6-11 July.

It includes a Mock International Arbitration and two-day conference on 9-10 July on ‘Arbitration and Economic Development in the Caribbean’.

The Branch AGM will also be held on 10 July.

For further details, see

→ www.ciarb.org/branches/ americas/caribbean → email janet.silvera99@gmail.com • For longer versions of branch news → www.ciarb.org/branch-news May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p15_CIArbnews.indd 15

15

20/03/2015 15:28

CIArb NEWS DUBAI WEEK The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators closed its 2014 events programme with the Dubai Week Conference. This comprised several key events including the Alexander Lecture and the UAE Branch International Conference.

CIArb UAE Branch Patron Mr Essam Al Tamimi C.Arb welcomes CIArb colleagues

The audience listens attentively to the keynote presentation

Senior figures arrive at the Westin Hotel in Dubai

Mr Al Tamimi and Margarett Bickford Smith MCIArb

Delegates register for Dubai Week

Delegates took the chance to network during Dubai Week

Then CIArb Vice President (now President) Charles Brown C.Arb at the launch of the Dispute p Board Rules

CIArb Director General Anthony y Abrahams MCIArb (right) t) presents a gift to Mr Al Tamimi mi Margaret Bickford Smith, John Wright FCIArb, Dr Nayla Comair-Obeid C.Arb and Charles Brown

Networking before the day begins

16

The event was hugely popular with delegates

Conference panel presentations kept the audience engrossed

THERESOLVER | May 2015

p16-17 pic spread.indd 16

20/03/2015 15:29

BIRMINGHAM CENTENARY CONFERENCE To celebrate its 100th anniversary, CIArb held its Centenary launch conference in Birmingham from January 22-24. The event, themed ‘Back to our roots’, sought to engage members in discussions that addressed the challenges and opportunities for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in the coming years as well as commending CIArb’s past and current achievements. → www.ciarb.org/centenary

CIArb Director General Anthony Abrahams MCIArb, the Lord Mayor of Birmingham Shafique Shah and CIArb President Charles Brown C.Arb

Check out Twitter for the hashtag #ciarb100

Delegates arrive at the Birmingham Centenary Conference

Promoting CIArb Dispute Board Rules

The black-tie ball gets T underway in the evening u Dancing the night away

CIArb Director General Anthony Abrahams opens the centennial launch conference

Delegates enjoy a great dining experience

Dr Nael Bunni responds to a question from the audience

Lord David Hacking C.Arb, Anthony Abrahams, Dr Nael Bunni C.Arb, Prof John Uff CBE QC C.Arb

Special guest keynote speaker Baroness Brady addresses the audience

May 2015 | THERESOLVER

p16-17 pic spread.indd 17

17

20/03/2015 15:32

WHAT’S ON

ONLINE

Further information on all professional training courses can be found at: → training.ciarb.org 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

12 May

UK

5

£480

Introduction to ADR

9 September

UK

5

£480

Introduction to ADR

24 November

UK

5

£480

Introduction to Mediation

10 September

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Mediation

19, 20, 21, 22, 26 October

UK

30

£2,400

Module 2 Mediation

27 October

UK

6

£1,560

Module 4 Mediation

Open entry

UK

–

£660

Introduction to Construction Adjudication

30 September

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

5 October

UK

25

£1,320

Module 2 Construction Adjudication

13 April

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 Construction Adjudication

5 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Accelerated Route to Membership

1–2 September

UK

6

£,1320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

3–4 August

UK

15.5

£1,860

Introduction to Domestic Arbitration

21 April

UK

5

£480

Introduction to Domestic Arbitration

16 October

UK

5

£480

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

5 October

UK

25

£1,320

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

MEDIATION

CONSTRUCTION ADJUDICATION

DOMESTIC ARBITRATION

Module 3 Domestic Arbitration

5 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 Domestic Arbitration

26 October

UK

12

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

17-18 November

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

24-25 November

UK

15.5

£1,860

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION Introduction to International Arbitration

25 June

UK

5

£480

Introduction to International Arbitration

23 May

Australia

-

Contact branch

Module 1 Law of Obligations and Civil Evidence

5 October

UK

25

£1,320

Module 2 International Arbitration

12 October

UK

18

£1,320

Module 3 International Arbitration

5 October

UK

17.5

£1,860

Module 4 International Arbitration

26 October

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

18 -19 August

UK

6

£1,320

Accelerated Route to Membership

6 July

Jamaica

-

Contact branch

Accelerated Route to Fellowship

24-25 November

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 Roebuck Lecture 4 June Free for Members Non-Members: £60 CIArb Centenary Conference: The Principles 1-3 July CIArb Member full delegate package: £450 Non-Member full delegate package: £515

FEATURED COURSE Diploma in International Commercial Arbitration 13-21 September (Part 1), Location: Oxford, Duration: 9 days, Fee: £6,000 13-21 September and 26 October (Parts 1 and 2), 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.

This is an intensive nine-day residential course with lectures, tutorials and discussion workshops. It is aimed

at practising lawyers, professionals and CIArb Members and Fellows who are familiar with legal reasoning and concepts, are involved in arbitration (domestic or international) and who wish to increase their knowledge and understanding of international commercial arbitration.

More details at: → www.ciarb.org/news-views-events

18

THERESOLVER | May 2015

p18 What's On.indd 18

20/03/2015 15:32

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.02.15.019.indd 1

18/03/2015 11:55

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.02.15.020.indd 1

18/03/2015 11:55