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

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