In UDA Land Sdn Bhd v Puncak Sepakat Sdn Bhd [2020] MLJU 892, the High Court was required to determine whether an award should be set aside because the sole arbitrator (“Arbitrator”) wrongly concluded that it had no jurisdiction to determine a counterclaim and insolvency set-off raised in the arbitration. The High Court set aside the award on the basis that the Arbitrator made an error of law in finding that it had no jurisdiction to hear the counterclaim and set-off.

Background

Con la asunción de estas dos autopistas, la empresa pública SEITTSA, dependiente del Ministerio de Fomento, ya gestiona la explotación y el mantenimiento de todas las que han entrado en fase de liquidación concursal, faltando únicamente por asumir la AP-41, “Madrid-Toledo”, que aún no ha llegado a dicha fase.

Revierten así al Estado, las dos últimas autopistas de peaje en fase de liquidación, después de que el Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 6 de Madrid, aprobase el plan de liquidación de las sociedades concesionarias.

The Cartagena-Vera and Alicante Ring-road sections of the AP-7 motorway are therefore handed back to the state, after Commercial Court 6 of Madrid approved the concessionaire's liquidation plan.

The AP-36 toll road is therefore handed back to the state, after Commercial Court 2 of Madrid approved the concessionaire's liquidation plan.

On 19 April 2013, Justice Foster of the Federal Court of Australia handed down judgment in the case of Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The question before his Honour was whether a foreign arbitral award made in China ought to be enforced in Australia against an Australian company in liquidation.

In Ambiente Ufficio S.p.A. and others v Argentine Republic, an ICSID tribunal held that it had general jurisdiction over a multi-party claim commenced by 90 distinct Italian nationals against Argentina in respect of harm said to result from Argentina’s default and later partial restructuring of its sovereign debt. It might at first blush appear that the tribunal’s willingness to admit a 90-party claim is an affirmation of the favourable approach to so-called “mass claims” taken by its “sister tribunal” in Abaclat (and others) v The Argentine Republic.

As many Japanese contractors are exposed to the financial crisis in Dubai, this month our Construction Disputes Avoidance Newsletter focuses on an important recent development concerning Dubai World. At the same time as announcing that the Nakheel sukuk due for repayment on 14 December would be repaid in full, the Dubai government stated that it would pass a reorganisation law for the Dubai World group in case that group is unable to achieve an acceptable restructuring of its remaining obligations. The details of that new law have now been released in the form of Dubai Decree No.