header-logo header-logo

11 September 2015
Issue: 7667 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

AB International (HK) Holdings plc and another v AB Clearing Corporation Ltd and others [2015] EWHC 2196 (Comm), [2015] All ER (D) 28 (Sep)

The Commercial Court refused to grant the claimants urgent interim relief under s 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996, namely, an order for disclosure, in support of a London Court of International Arbitration arbitration which they had commenced against the defendants the previous day. The claimants had failed to establish that there was any real urgency, nor any necessity for the order sought.

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

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll