header-logo header-logo

03 August 2012
Issue: 7525 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

Johann MK Blumenthal GMBH & Co KG and another v Itochu Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 996, [2012] All ER (D) 240 (Jul)

Where s 18(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996 applied, the reference to “the court” meant the court at first instance, so that if permission to appeal was refused by the judge at first instance, the Court of Appeal could not itself grant permission to appeal. The policy of restricting appeals, found in s 18 of the Act, was deliberate. It reflected the underlying general principles, as to party autonomy and protection of the parties from unnecessary delay and expense, enshrined in ss 1(a) and 1(b) of the Act.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sharpe Pritchard—Victoria Heald-Barraclough

Sharpe Pritchard—Victoria Heald-Barraclough

Magic Circle hire strengthens Sharpe Pritchard’s infrastructure finance capability

Lewis Silkin—Iskander Fernandez

Lewis Silkin—Iskander Fernandez

Lewis Silkin adds corporate crime specialist to growing dispute resolution team

Morr & Co—Michael Charalambous

Morr & Co—Michael Charalambous

Morr Co strengthens private client team with partner appointment

NEWS
Should every solicitor found to have acted dishonestly face automatic striking off? The answer, argues John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke LLP in NLJ this week, is no 
Winning an arbitral award against a state is one thing; enforcing it is another
Can government success in court tell us whether the rule of law is healthy? 
Poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses can trigger litigation before the real dispute is even addressed
As cryptocurrency becomes mainstream, family lawyers are increasingly confronting the challenges it creates on divorce
back-to-top-scroll