header-logo header-logo

15 December 2023 / Masood Ahmed , Lal Akhter
Issue: 8053 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Arbitration
printer mail-detail

Arbitration: The $2bn question

151421
Lal Akhter & Masood Ahmed discuss judicial guidance on staying proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement
  • Covers the ongoing Supreme Court case of Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) & Ors.
  • Looks at the court’s guidance on applying for a stay under s 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

In the recent case of Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) & Ors [2023] UKSC 32, the UK Supreme Court provided important guidance concerning the interpretation and application of s 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 concerning the mandatory stay of proceedings which are brought in breach of an arbitration agreement. The decision will be of interest to practitioners who choose London as their seat of arbitration as well as those in jurisdictions with similar statutory provisions. The appeal, stemming from a pre-trial matter in ongoing Commercial Court proceedings, involves the Republic alleging a conspiracy entailing bribery and corruption to secure purported sovereign guarantees of around $2bn(£1.59bn). At the time of writing, the trial

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

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll