Justice Frank Seepersad advocates for campaign finance reform - Trinidad and Tobago Newsday newsday.co.tt - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from newsday.co.tt Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
UK - Privy Council Considers Norwich Pharmacal And Bankers Trust Disclosure Orders Against Banks. Legal News and Analysis - United Kingdom - Dispute Resolution - Commercial Litigation -
Betamax applied to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
(the
Privy Council) against the decision of the
Supreme Court of Mauritius. The Supreme Court had allowed the
appeal of the then appellant, State Trading Corporation
(
STC) and the arbitral award made by the arbitral
tribunal to the then respondent, Betamax was dismissed as
summarised in Appleby s Mauritius Newsletter August 2019, here.
The decision of the Board of the Privy Council dated 14 June
2021 in this Appeal is most certainly welcomed within the
International Arbitration community. The Board has ruled in favour
of Betamax, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court and
Privy Council rules on ‘serious irregularity’ challenge in international arbitration
Out-Law News | 29 Apr 2021 | 9:24 am | 4 min. read
A recent decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (Privy Council) provides authoritative guidance on what is required in order to uphold a challenge to an arbitral award on the grounds of serious irregularity.
In their judgment, Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows held that a serious irregularity challenge does not require a separate and express allegation of substantial injustice by the applicant and a separate consideration and finding of substantial injustice by the court, in order to be successful.
The decision, on a referral by the Court of Appeal of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, is the first by a highest appellate court to consider the requirement of ‘irregularity causing substantial injustice’ since the 2006 House of Lords judgment in Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA. In addition, the