Written by the construction team at Freeths LLP
In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to reject an application to set aside a statutory demand. The appellant had argued (among other things) that an arbitration clause in his agreement with the respondent required their dispute to be referred to arbitration.
- Jackson reforms will go ahead in April 2013
The new Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, has confirmed that the Jackson reforms will come into force in April 2013, scotching rumours that the legislative process would not be completed in time. He emphasised the importance of the Court of Appeal's role in implementing the reforms, maintaining consistency and minimising satellite litigation, urging the court to "speak clearly through [its] judgments in explaining how the reforms are intended to operate". He also described the issue of costs management
A late October 2010 case Straw Realisations v Shaftsbury House illustrates the courts’ approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators’ awards. Given the current spate of contractor insolvencies and popularity of adjudication, any trust facing an adverse adjudicator's decision in favour of its contractor should not pay without due consideration.
A late-October 2010 case on adjudication illustrates the courts' approach to technical and insolvency-based challenges regarding enforcement of adjudicators' awards.
Haymills (Contractors) Ltd went into administration in August 2009 having already won one adjudication against its employer, Shaftsbury, and having just commenced another, which it subsequently also won. Given Haymills' administration, Shaftsbury refused to pay the amounts awarded in either adjudication, relying on numerous heads to resist payment:
Arbitration proceedings in England are creatures of contract, arising out of the agreement between the parties to refer their disputes to arbitration. However, except in limited circumstances, when one of the parties to an arbitration agreement becomes insolvent, England’s statutory insolvency regime takes precedence over the rules of the arbitration.
The Insolvency Regime in England and Wales
An adjudicator can only deal with one dispute under one contract. In Enterprise v McFadden the adjudicator could not therefore deal with a claim to a net balance arising out of mutual dealings on four separate subcontracts (one of which was not even a construction contract) under Rule 4.90 of the Insolvency Rules 1986. Tripartite adjudication is not possible so the adjudication could not cope with a cross claim which would have involved joining assignors.
Background
Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."
Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:
Background
Article 4.1 of Council Regulation (EU) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (the "Regulation") states: "Save as otherwise provided in this Regulation, the law applicable to insolvency proceedings and their effects shall be that of the Member State within the territory of which such proceedings are opened..."
Article 4.2 of the Regulation sets out a non-exhaustive list of the matters which the law of the state of the opening of insolvency proceedings is to determine, including:
In Josef Syska (Administrator of Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) and Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) v Vivendi Universal SA & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 677 the main question to be decided by the Court of Appeal was whether, when an arbitration is proceeding in one Member State of the European Union, in this case the UK, and one of the parties to the arbitration becomes insolvent in another Member State, in this case Poland, the consequences of that insolvency, in so far as they affect the arbitration, are to be determined by the law of the Member State where the insolvency procee