When we began analysing in depth the possibility of Britain exiting the European Union, 18 months prior to the June 2016 referendum, the HERBERT businessSMITH FREEHILLS consensus w07as very muchSECTION TITLE that Brexit was a remote prospect that either would never happen or not matter.
Fast forward just over two years and the reality could not be more different. In this updated edition of our Brexit legal guide, we take stock of the present situation, summarising the key developments since last year's vote and what is to be expected in the months ahead. 10 33 99
If 2016 ended with more questions than answers as to how Brexit would take shape, 2017 began with at least a little more clarity.
Welcome to this issue of Herbert Smith Freehills' Australian Construction Dispute Resolution Newsletter.
This newsletter updates you on legal developments relevant to your industry by featuring Australian court decisions and legislative developments of particular interest.
In this issue, we look at:
For more information, please contact the relevant Herbert Smith Freehills partner referred to in the contact list or Simone Pearlman, head of legal knowledge on +44 (0) 20 7466 2021 or email simone. [email protected] This is a guide to key legal developments in the coming months and years ahead (UK perspective).
The case of Philpott & Orton v Lycee Francais Charles De Gaulle Schoolserves as a welcome reminder that the English court will strictly enforce agreements to arbitrate by ordering a mandatory stay of court proceedings, even in contexts where court procedures may traditionally apply.
In Riverrock Securities Limited v International Bank of St Petersburg (Joint Stock Company) [2020] EWHC 2483 (Comm) the High Court granted Riverrock Securities Limited (“RSL”) an interim anti-suit injunction against bankruptcy proceedings brought against RSL by the receiver of the International Bank of St Petersburg (“IBSP”) (the Bankruptcy Proceedings).
The English Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal brought against a recent High Court decision to stay a winding-up petition in favour of arbitration proceedings, in Salford Estates (No. 2) Limited v Altomart Limited [2014] EWCA 575 Civ.
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
Alstom v Insigma, the (in)famous SIAC arbitration administered under ICC rules, was recently up for yet another round of judicial sparring following years of proceedings in several fora, which left Alstom Technology Limited (“Alstom”) with a HK$261 million award but limited assets against which to execute.
A recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, Dalian Huarui Heavy Industry International Company Ltd v Clyde & Co Australia [2020] WASC 132 (available here), demonstrates that the use of interim measures to provide security for an amount in dispute can be a very powerful remedy when structured through the creation of a trust.