After the decision in Enka Insaat ve Sanayi A.S. v OOO Insurance Company Chubb, UK Supreme Court, in the absence of an express choice, to decide what is the governing law of an agreement to arbitrate in the context of a party’s attempt to enforce an arbitration award.
The U.K. Supreme Court recently handed down its long-awaited judgment in Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) v Kout Food Group (Kuwait). The judgment confirmed and applied the principles concerning.
Friday, December 18, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Recently, the Supreme Court of United Kingdom (“UK Supreme Court”) in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb,
1 (“Enka v. Chubb”) has passed a landmark ruling, where they have set out the principles to be followed for determination of the law governing the arbitration agreement. This is the first time the UK Supreme Court has clarified the position of law after a careful consideration of the earlier cases, including the famous decision of the UK Court of Appeal in Sulamerica v. Enesa Engenharia (“Sulamerica”)
2.
The UK Supreme Court has held that where the arbitration clause does not specifically mention the law governing the arbitration agreement, but however mentions the law of the main contract, then the same would normally govern the law governing the arbitration agreement. Where there is no express choice of law governing the main contract, by default, the arbitration agreement would be governed b
Dec.10.2020
Shortly after its important decision on the governing law of arbitration agreements in
Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 (as covered in our recent alert here), the U.K. Supreme Court has handed down another judgment long awaited by arbitration participants and practitioners – namely,
Halliburton Company v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd [2020] UKSC 48, which is set to become the leading authority on arbitrators’ duties of impartiality and disclosure.
The case concerned the situation in which there are multiple appointments of the same arbitrator in arbitrations involving the same subject matter and only one common party. The importance of the issues it raised was such that five arbitral institutions and associations were given permission to intervene (the LCIA, the ICC, the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the Grain and Feed Trade Association, and the London Maritime Arbitrators Association).