header-logo header-logo

Balancing Act(s)

27 September 2013 / Rian Matthews , Tom Cameron
Issue: 7577 / Categories: Features , Commercial
printer mail-detail
istock_000016932494medium

Despite recent Supreme Court consideration, the relationship between the Arbitration Act & the Senior Courts Act remains unclear, say Rian Matthews & Tom Cameron

The Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) is the primary source of English law on arbitration. A key principle underlying the Act is the goal of increasing the autonomy of the arbitral process and limiting court intervention (s 1(c)). To support arbitration, however, AA 1996 gives the English courts significant powers to grant interim orders to preserve assets and evidence (under s 44). Yet the exercise of these powers is subject to strict limitations, so that control of the arbitral process rests with the appointed tribunal.

But there is a tension between the limitations on the courts’ powers under s 44 of AA 1996 and the courts’ wide and general discretion under s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (SCA 1981) to grant injunctions or appoint a receiver where it is “just and convenient to do so”. In 2005, the Court of Appeal remarked that the relationship between the

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll