ReSolution Issue 11
November 2016
In this issue, we feature the topical issues of ‘third-party funding’ and ‘investment treaty arbitration’.
We also look at expert determination, child inclusive mediation, whether indemnity costs should be the default position for unsuccessfully attempting to resist enforcement of an arbitral award, the applicability of Islamic finance principles under English law, the CAS Maria Sharapova decision, procedural fairness, extension of arbitration agreements to non-signatories; and more.
Contents
- Navigating the Minefield of Expert Determination – by Nigel Jones QC
- Child Inclusion Practices – by Lisa Cohen
- Chief Justice Leaves a Door Open on Indemnity Costs – by Albert Monichino
- Third-Party Funding: a New Chapter in Hong Kong & Singapore- by – Matthew Secomb, Melody Chan, Thomas Wingfield, Philip Tan
- Case in Brief: Sino Channel Asia Ld v Dana Shipping and Trading Pte Singapore
- English High Court Allows Recovery of Third-party Funding Costs in ICC Arbitration Proceedings- by Mark Hilton, Jamie Curle and James Carter
- Clash of Jurisdictions: Applicability of Islamic Finance Principles under English Law – by Minal Kaul and Margarida Narciso
- The Maria Sharapova Decision – a Double Fault – by Gary Rice, Aidan Healy and Nial Sexton
- Non-signatories to Arbitration Agreements – by Hasal Brasington and Andrey Panov
- The Investment Treaty Arbitration Review, The Trans-Pacific Partnership-Lexology – by Andrew Stephenson and Lee Caroll
- How Reasonable is a ‘Reasonable Opportunity’? The Victorian Supreme Court Considers the Scope of Procedural Fairness in Commercial Arbitrations.