T R A N S N AT IONAL

C O N S T R U C T IO N A RBI TRATI ON

LLOYD’S ARBITRATION LAW LIBRARY

Series editor: Renato Nazzini
 LLOYD’S ARBITRATION LAW LIBRARY

Transnational Construction Arbitration: Singapore Arbitration Legislation: Annotated

Key Themes in the Resolution of Second Edition
Construction Disputes by Robert Merkin and Johanna Hjalmarsson
Edited by Renato Nazzini (2016)
(2018)
Injunctive Relief and International Arbitration
The Practice of International by Hakeem Seriki
Commercial Arbitration: (2015)
A Handbook for Hong Kong
Arbitrators Arbitration Act 1996
by Anselmo Reyes Fifth Edition
(2018) by Robert Merkin and Louis Flannery
(2014)
 T R ANSNAT IO N A L
CONST R UC T I ON A R BIT R AT IO N

KEY T H E M E S I N T H E RE S OL UT I ON
O F C O N S T R U C T I ON DI S P UT E S

EDITED B Y
R ENATO NAZ Z INI
First published 2018
by Informa Law from Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Informa Law from Routledge

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Informa Law from Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2018 selection and editorial matter, Renato Nazzini; individual chapters, the contributors

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying
and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this book is correct,
neither the author nor Informa Law can accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions or
for any consequences arising therefrom.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Nazzini, Renato.
Title: Transnational construction arbitration : key themes in the resolution
of construction disputes / by Renato Nazzini.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Informa Law from
Routledge, 2017. | Series: Lloyd’s arbitration law library | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017035476 | ISBN 9781138281523 (hbk) |
ISBN 9781315271101 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: International commercial arbitration. | Construction
industry—Law and legislation. | Construction contracts.
Classification: LCC K2405.B84 T73 2017 | DDC 343.07/8624—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017035476

ISBN: 978-1-138-28152-3 hbk

eISBN: 978-1-315-27110-1 ebk

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
 C O N T E NT S

Foreword xiii
Biographies xv
Table of cases xxiii
Table of legislation xxxvii
Table of international treaties and conventions xli
Table of arbitration rules xliii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1
Renato Nazzini
Objective 1
Structure 2
Approach 3

CHAPTER 2. THE LAW GOVERNING THE ARBITRATION

AGREEMENT: A TRANSNATIONAL SOLUTION? 5
Renato Nazzini
Introduction 5
The need for a separate inquiry into the law governing the arbitration agreement 6
The first candidate approach: the law applicable to the main contract 10
The second candidate approach: the law of the seat 12
The third candidate approach: transnational rules 16
Overcoming the challenges of a transnational approach 19
The non-discrimination principle 19
The estoppel principle 21
The validation principle 22
Conclusions 23

CHAPTER 3. MULTI-TIER DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSES

IN CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS 25
Sir Vivian Ramsey
Introduction 25
Typical multi-tier clauses 25
Problems with multi-tier clauses 26
Enforceability of multi-tier clauses 27
Conclusion 32
v
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 4. THE RISE OF ARBITRAL INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR

ROLE IN PRIVATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 33
John Uff
Origin of institutions 33
Arbitration in the modern era 34
Conduct of arbitration 36
Fund holding 37
Arbitrator’s fees 38
Terms of reference 39
Challenges to arbitrators 40
Ethics and conduct of advocates 41
Scrutiny of awards 42
Discussion and conclusions 44

CHAPTER 5. ARBITRATION AND THE EXPANDING CIRCLE OF

CONSENTING PARTIES: JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES
AND CONSOLIDATION OF RELATED CLAIMS 48
Neil Andrews
Introduction 48
The voluntary principle (need for party consent) 48
The way ahead 49
Current arbitration mechanisms of joinder and consolidation 49
Joinder of an additional party (or set of additional parties) 49
Consolidation 49
Principles relevant to joinder and consolidation in arbitration law 50
Principle 1: party consent and the voluntary principle 50
Principle 2: procedural privity 50
Principle 3: enforcement only against a true party 51
Principle 4: consumer protection 51
Access to arbitration under the English contractual third party
beneficiary statute 51
Exclusion of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
by the contracting parties 51
Section 8(1), Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 52
Section 8(2), Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999: a pure right of
arbitration conferred on a third party 54
Opt-in multi-party arbitration 55
Representative proceedings and opt-out systems 55
Revisiting ‘party consent’ 55
Multilateral contracts: the foundation for arbitration contractual networks 56
Arbitral institutions deciding to link arms to create a network of common
rules regulating joinder and consolidation 59
Representative proceedings permitting multi-party arbitration on a large scale 59
Embedding the new approach 61
Concluding remarks 61

vi
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 6. MULTI-PARTY ARBITRATION UNDER

INSTITUTIONAL RULES 63
Andrea Carlevaris
Introduction 63
Institutional rules on complex arbitrations: the respective roles of institutions
and arbitrators 64
The administration of complex arbitrations under the ICC Rules 65
Joinder of additional parties 65
Automatic nature of the joinder and prima facie assessment of the court 65
The procedure 66
Requirements for joinder 69
The appointment of arbitrators 70
Claims between multiple parties 70
Purpose and scope 70
Procedure 70
Multi-contract arbitrations 72
Consolidation 73
Notion and purpose 73
Agreement to consolidate 73
Same arbitration agreement 74
Different arbitration agreements 75
Discretional nature of the decision 76
Formalities 76
Conclusions 77

CHAPTER 7. ROLE OF EXPERT WITNESSES IN

CONSTRUCTION ARBITRATION: DELAY AND
DISRUPTION AND QUANTUM ISSUES 78
Gideon E Kamya-Lukoda and Anthony J Morgan
Overview 78
Independence 79
The nature of construction projects 79
Common issues faced on complex capital projects 80
Multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests 80
The effect of skills shortages 80
The importance of sound governance 81
The scope of work for an expert witness 82
Project management of the expert witness evidence process 83
General challenges in undertaking delay analysis 84
Substantiating the facts 84
The quality of records and information 84
Languages 84
Working to a timescale – proportionality 85
Identifying the baseline 85
Determining completion 86

vii
 CONTENTS

The manipulation of schedules 86

Concurrency of delay events 87
Uncertainty in forecasting outcomes 87
Delay analysis methods 89
Delay analysis techniques 90
As-Planned v As-Built 92
Impacted As-Planned 92
Sequential addition of delays 92
‘But for’ approach to adding delays 93
Collapsed As-Built 93
Time impact analysis 94
Pragmatic technique 94
Effective articulation of the delay analysis results 95
Conclusion 97

CHAPTER 8. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS AS ‘INVESTMENTS’

FOR THE PURPOSES OF INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATIONS 98
Virginie Colaiuta and William Laurence Craig
Introduction 98
Definition of ‘investment’ 98
Foreign investments in proceedings conducted according to
the ICSID Convention 98
Definitions of foreign investment in investment treaties 100
Definition of foreign investment under the ICSID Convention 101
How claims relating to construction contracts have been considered 104
When construction contracts have constituted ‘investments’ 104
When construction contracts have not constituted an ‘investment’ 107
Construction projects versus stand-alone engineering contracts 108
Conclusions 110

CHAPTER 9. EXPROPRIATION OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS

IN INVESTMENT TREATY ARBITRATION 111
Marco Bollini and Virginie Colaiuta
Introduction 111
General principles surrounding the expropriation of contractual rights 111
Sovereign capacity 113
Sovereign right to regulate/legislate 115
Breaches of other treaty standards 116
Application to circumstances in which it has been claimed that contractual
rights have been expropriated 116
Termination 116
Contractual non-performance 118
Failure to take action 119
Series of acts taken against investment 120
Conclusions 120

viii
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER 10. THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN ARBITRAL

AWARDS: MAIN RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPECTIVES 121
Domenico Di Pietro
Introduction 121
The mechanics of the New York Convention 121
The public policy scrutiny 123
Recognition and enforcement of awards annulled at the place of arbitration 127
Enforcement of lookalikes 131
Evolution of ADR 131
Final and binding DAB decisions enforceable under
the New York Convention? 136
Conclusion 137

CHAPTER 11. RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DOMESTIC

AND FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST 139
Gordon Blanke
Introduction 139
Enforcement of domestic arbitral awards 142
Domestic ratification processes 142
Applications for nullification and public policy considerations 146
Enforcement through Special Tribunals 152
Enforcement in or through free zones 153
UAE-based free zones 154
The QFC 158
Curial assistance in enforcement 158
Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards 159
General 159
Enforcement through regional and international enforcement instruments 161
The GCC Convention and the Riyadh Convention 162
The New York Convention 163
The public policy exception 165
Enforcement in and through free zones 167
Enforcement of investment arbitration awards 169
Enforcement of ICSID awards 170
Enforcement of non-ICSID awards 171
Other enforcement frameworks 172
Conclusion 173

CHAPTER 12. REMEDIES AT THE SEAT AND ENFORCEMENT OF

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL AWARDS: RES JUDICATA, ISSUE
ESTOPPEL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS IN ENGLISH LAW 175
Renato Nazzini
Introduction 175
The traditional approach to the relationship between the remedies at the seat and
enforcement proceedings and its criticism 177
Res judicata 181

ix
 CONTENTS

Abuse of process and the discretion to enforce 184

Estoppel arising from a decision of an enforcement court 188
Conclusions 192

CHAPTER 13. DISPUTE BOARDS 193

Nicholas Gould and Christina Lockwood
Introduction 193
What is a dispute board? 193
Legal basis for dispute boards 193
Common law 193
Civil law 194
Adjudication and dispute boards in England 194
Demand for amicable dispute resolution 194
English adjudication enforcement 195
Types of dispute boards 197
DRBs 197
DABs 197
DRB or DAB 198
CDBs 198
Pro et contra 198
Benefits of dispute boards 198
Disadvantages of dispute boards 200
The use of dispute boards 201
Differences between FIDIC contracts 202
FIDIC dispute adjudication boards 202
FIDIC Conditions of Contracts for Construction (the Red Book) 202
Yellow Book and Silver Book 203
The Gold Book 203
Dispute board members 204
Selection and appointment procedure 204
Qualifications and obligations 206
Impartiality and independence 206
People skills 207
Qualifications and experience relevant to the circumstances 207
Remuneration of DB members 208
Removal or replacement of DB members 209
Removal of a board member 209
Replacement of a board member 209
Referral of disputes to a dispute board 210
Preconditions for referral 210
Jurisdiction of a dispute board 211
Time limits 211
Enforcement of DB decisions 212
The DAB is a gateway to arbitration 212
DAB procedures are mandatory 212
FIDIC drafting 213

x
 CONTENTS

Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services Ltd 213

The Swiss judgment 214
The FIDIC December 2016 revision 215
The new Yellow Book 215
Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board 215
The claims procedure and the FIDIC time-bar 216
Law governing DAB 216
Conclusion 219

CHAPTER 14. ENFORCEMENT OF DAB DECISIONS UNDER

THE FIDIC 1999 FORMS OF CONTRACT 220
Taner Dedezade
Introduction 220
The FIDIC 1999 wording 222
The issues 223
What is the contractual obligation of a party in relation to compliance
with a DAB’s decision? 223
Does the ‘failure to pay’ amount to a ‘dispute’ that can be referred to
arbitration under Sub-Clause 20.6? 224
Is the dispute capable of referral under Sub-Clause 20.6? 224
What cause of action? 225
Damages for breach of contract 225
Does the failure to pay amount to a breach of contract? 225
If so, what loss flows from that breach of contract? 226
Damages amount to interest only 226
Damages include principal sum 226
Does the ‘secondary dispute’ need to be referred back to the DAB
prior to referral to arbitration? 226
Mr Seppälä’s view 227
The FIDIC Guidance Memorandum 228
The concept of an inherent premise 228
The practical difficulty 230
Specific performance 230
Does the arbitral tribunal have the power to order specific performance? 231
How should an arbitral tribunal exercise its power? 232
What effect, if any, does a NOD have on the contractual obligation on
a party to give prompt effect to the DAB’s decision? 233
Is it necessary for the parties to refer both the primary and secondary disputes
in a single arbitration? 235
One-dispute approach or two-dispute approach? 235
What sort of award? 237
Terminology 238
Is a binding DAB decision interim relief? 239
Can a final award be given for relief that is not final and is it enforceable
under the New York Convention? 239
Argument against final award enforcing DAB’s decision 241

xi
 CONTENTS

Arguments in favour of a final award as issue of non-payment

resolved finally 242
Conclusion on this issue 244
The FIDIC Gold Book 245
Has the wording in the Gold Book/Guidance Memorandum resolved issues? 245
Conclusion 247

CHAPTER 15. EMERGENCY ARBITRATION AND THE INTERPLAY

WITH OTHER PRE-ARBITRAL MECHANISMS 249
Patricia Shaughnessy
Introduction 249
The development of emergency arbitration 250
An overview of emergency arbitration procedures 251
The legal nature and effects of emergency arbitration 253
Emergency arbitration and other pre-arbitral relief 256
Dispute boards 257
Contractually agreed negotiations, mediation, and cooling-off periods 260
Conclusions 261

Index 263

xii
 F O R E WORD

When I first entered practice just over 50 years ago international arbitration, as we know
it today, was in its infancy. Construction arbitration in the domestic context, on the other
hand, was well established, and it was almost exclusively in proceedings of that kind that
I was engaged as I began to develop my practice. That remained the case until I left
practice some 20 years later on my appointment to the bench as a full-time judge.
Now that I have left the bench and am able once again to sit as an arbitrator, I have
been fascinated by the way that international arbitration, or transnational arbitration as
we are being encouraged by the title of this book to call it, has developed while I have
been detached from practice. Domestic construction arbitration, as I knew it, was largely
the product of the arbitration clauses attached to the standard form contracts devised by
professional bodies engaged with the construction industry. It was guided and assisted
by a body of domestic arbitration law that had been developed over very many decades.
The role of the courts in the enforcement of awards was well established. Where issues
arose that crossed the boundaries between one system of law and another, as can happen
within the United Kingdom within which there are three separate jurisdictions, they could
be resolved by an appeal to the supreme domestic court: see Whitworth Street Estates
(Manchester) Ltd v James Miller and Partners Ltd.1 The amount of literature that this
system generated was quite small. It was confined to the occasional article and a few
leading textbooks.
Transnational arbitration, however, operates in a quite different field. There is no single
domestic court to which contentious issues of practice or procedure can be referred. The
system is guided and supported by arbitration institutions, but they are not equipped to
answer every problem and one would not expect them to do so. Thus, there is a greater
emphasis on the resolution of these issues by example, guidance and debate. And it is to
the practitioners and academics that one has to look for this, not to judges. The process
is enlivened by the cross-fertilisation of ideas that engagement between different jurisdic-
tions produces. This in turn has produced a remarkable flourishing of the literature on the
subject, to which experts from all the leading jurisdictions have contributed. It has also
generated new ideas about how the process of resolving disputes may best be conducted.
No one venturing into this field can afford not to be kept in touch with these developments.

1 Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd v James Miller and Partners Ltd [1970] AC 583 (HL).

xiii
 FOREWORD

That is the background against which this book should be viewed. Professor Nazzini
has brought together in its preparation an impressive group of contributors of international
distinction. The issues with which they deal are fascinating in themselves as subjects for
discussion and debate. But the busy practitioner is entitled to look for more than that. The
value of this book is that it provides the topical guidance that those who are experts in
their own fields are best placed to give. It makes an important and welcome contribution
to the transnational literature.

David Hope
The Rt Hon the Lord Hope of Craighead
June 2017

xiv
 B I O G R A P HI E S

David Hope
Lord Hope of Craighead (David Hope) is an arbitrator at Brick Court Chambers in Lon-
don, having retired from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in June 2013. He
practised at the Scottish Bar as a member of the Faculty of Advocates for 24 years,
becoming a Queen’s Counsel in 1978. He served as Standing Junior Counsel for the
Board of Inland Revenue in Scotland from 1974 to 1978 and as an Advocate Depute (a
senior prosecutor in the High Court of Justiciary) from 1978 to 1982. From 1986 to 1989
he was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates (Chairman of the Scottish Bar). While at the
bar he had an extensive practice in tax, construction and oil and gas law and sat occa-
sionally as a sole arbitrator.
In 1989 Lord Hope was appointed to the bench as Lord President of the Court of Session
and Lord Justice General of Scotland (the Chief Justice in Scotland). He held these offices
until 1996, when he was appointed to sit as a judge in the House of Lords as a Lord of
Appeal in Ordinary. In 2009 he was appointed to be the Second Senior Lord of Appeal
in the House of Lords. He became Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United
Kingdom when that court was established in October 2009. He continued to hold that
office until he retired, having sat as an appellate judge for 24 years. For 17 of those years
he was a member of the UK’s highest court, and he also sat as a member of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council. During that period, he contributed to judgments in a
number of appeals that raised issues of arbitration law, including the Fiona Trust case.
He was the author of the title on arbitration law in The Laws of Scotland: Stair Memorial
Encyclopaedia.

Renato Nazzini
Professor Nazzini is Professor of Law at King’s College London and Director of Research
of the Centre of Construction Law and Dispute Resolution. His areas of expertise are
construction law, litigation, arbitration and ADR as well as EU, UK, and Italian competi-
tion law. Renato is an Italian advocate and a Solicitor of the Senior Courts of England
and Wales and practises as counsel and as arbitrator in complex commercial disputes all
over the world.
He published more than 50 articles and book chapters on competition law and international
commercial arbitration as well as a number of books including Competition Enforcement
and Procedure (Oxford, OUP 2016), The Foundations of European Union Competition

xv
 BIOGRAPHIES

Law: The Objective and Principles of Article 102 (Oxford, OUP 2011) and Concurrent
Proceedings in Competition Law: Procedure, Evidence and Remedies (Oxford, OUP 2004).
Prior to joining King’s College London, Renato was Professor of Competition Law and
Arbitration at the University of Southampton and Deputy Director at the UK Competition
Authority where he practised in the Government Legal Service. He holds doctorates from
the Universities of Milan and London and has been a Visiting Professor at the University
of Turin and an Honorary Fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative
Law in London.

Neil Andrews
Neil Andrews is Professor of Civil Justice and Private law, University of Cambridge. He
researches in the fields of dispute resolution and contract law. His recent publications
are: Andrews on Civil Processes (Cambridge, Intersentia 2013) (2 volumes) and Contract
Law (2nd edn, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2015). He was the English rep-
resentative on the working party responsible for the American Law Institute/UNIDROIT’s
Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
2006). He is a barrister and Bencher of Middle Temple (London).

Gordon Blanke
Dr Gordon Blanke LLM, PhD, MCIArb is partner and heads the International Commercial
and Investment Arbitration Group of DWF (Middle East) LLP in the DIFC, Dubai. He
has wide-ranging experience in all types of international commercial and investment arbi-
tration in both the common and civil law legal systems, having acted as advising counsel
and arbitrator under most leading institutional arbitration rules (ICC, LCIA, DIFC-LCIA,
DIAC, ADCCAC, GAFTA, GCC, JAMS, SCC, etc.) and ad hoc in arbitrations seated in
the US, Europe and the Middle East in relation to a variety of industry sectors, including
construction/real estate, corporate, oil & gas, banking & finance etc. He speaks regularly
on international arbitration and has published over 200 books and articles on international
arbitration, including Comparison of Gulf International Arbitration Rules (New York, Juris
2010), Comparison of MENA International Arbitration Rules (New York, Juris 2011) and
Arbitration in the MENA (New York, Juris 2016), and most recently Commentary on the
UAE Arbitration Chapter (London, Sweet & Maxwell 2017). In the 2014 and 2015 edi-
tions of The Legal 500, Gordon has been recommended for international arbitration in the
UAE, being praised as ‘very professional’ in the 2016 edition. He is also listed as a leading
arbitration specialist in Who’s Who Legal 2015 and has most recently been recognised in
GAR’s 1st edition of Who’s Who Legal: Arbitration – Future Leaders? In addition, he is
admitted as an advocate to the DIFC Courts. He is a member and Vice Chair of the Steer-
ing Committee of the UAE–ICC Commission on Arbitration & ADR and on the editorial
board of a number of leading arbitration journals, including in particular Arbitration, the
journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators.

Marco Bollini
Marco Bollini was appointed Senior Executive Vice President Legal Affairs in October
2016, and he has been a board member of Eni Foundation since May 2016.

xvi
 BIOGRAPHIES

After graduating in law from the University of Milan, he worked as a lawyer for a few
years in a law firm, also in Milan. He joined Eni in 1997 in the Legal Department of Agip
SpA, mainly following international legal projects until 2001, when he took on the respon-
sibility of International Legal Assistance of Exploration and Production Division.
In 2005 Marco was appointed Legal Director of the Gas & Power Division, further
diversifying his business knowledge. However, in 2007 he returned to the Exploration &
Production Division as Legal Director.
In 2008, following the centralisation of the Eni’s legal function into one legal department,
he took on the responsibility for the legal assistance to the company’s activities outside
Europe. Five years later he was appointed Executive Vice President International Business
Legal Area and, in 2015, he became Executive Vice President International and Finance
Legal Affairs of Eni, with a strong exposure to international matters, with particular focus
on the Upstream business and management of partnerships and M&A transactions.

Andrea Carlevaris
Andrea Carlevaris is a partner at BonelliErede based in Paris and Milan specialising in
international dispute resolution. His practice covers international commercial and invest-
ment arbitration. Mr Carlevaris acts as counsel and arbitrator. He is also an adjunct professor
at Sciences Po in Paris.
Between September 2012 and May 2017, Mr Carlevaris has been the Secretary General of
the ICC International Court of Arbitration and the Director of the ICC Dispute Resolution
Services. Before joining the ICC Court, he was a partner in the Rome office of Bonelli Erede
Pappalardo, which he joined in 2003. He was also a member of the ICC International Court
of Arbitration and of the ICC Commission on Arbitration. Prior to Bonelli Erede Pappalardo,
he was counsel at the Secretariat of the ICC International Court of Arbitration.
Mr Carlevaris is the author of a monograph on conservatory and provisional measures
in international arbitration and of numerous articles on international law, conflict of laws
and international arbitration. He regularly contributes to several journals, serving on the
board of directors of the European International Arbitration Review, Rivista dell’arbitrato,
Diritto del commercio internazionale and Giustizia civile. In 2011, Global Arbitration
Review named him one of the most prominent international arbitration lawyers under the
age of 45 (‘45 under 45’)

Virginie Colaiuta
Virginie acts as counsel, advocate and arbitrator in international arbitration proceedings,
also based on bilateral investment treaties, relating to construction and energy disputes
under the rules of the ICC, LCIA, SCC, EDF (European Development Fund), ICSID and
UNCITRAL.
Virginie has studied and worked in different jurisdictions such as Italy, France, Canada,
USA and the UK in different languages (Italian, French and English). Virginie is admitted
to practise in England & Wales (English Solicitor), France (Avocat à la Cour) and New
York, USA (Attorney at Law).

xvii
 BIOGRAPHIES

As a result of her training and working experience, she has an excellent understanding of
the differences of civil law and common law rules applicable to construction projects.
Her track record in the construction sector has led her to being recommended as a leader
in the legal directories “Chambers Global” and “Who’s Who Legal”.
Virginie regularly lectures on conflict of laws and investment treaty arbitration relating
to construction projects at the MSc Programme of King’s College London.
She is presently the Publications Officer of the International Construction Projects Com-
mittee of the International Bar Association (“IBA”) and Editor of the IBA’s law magazine
titled “Construction Law International”.

William Laurence Craig

William Laurence Craig is a senior counsel in Orrick’s Paris office, and a member of the
Litigation General Group. He has practised international commercial law in Paris since
1964, specialising in international arbitration for over 40 years.
William has served as counsel in over 150 International Chamber of Commerce arbitra-
tions, including numerous disputes involving states and state agencies. He has also fre-
quently acted as counsel in state arbitrations before the International Centre for the
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and under the UNCITRAL Rules of Arbitration
and in investment disputes arising under bilateral investment treaties. Furthermore, he
also acts as arbitrator, both party-appointed and as chairman, and has served as such in
more than 25 ICC arbitrations and in numerous AAA, LCIA, ICSID, CIETAC and ad
hoc arbitrations.
Prior to joining Orrick, he was an independent arbitrator. During this time, he worked
for Coudert Frères, Paris as a partner from 1967 to 2003 and as an associate from 1964
to 1966. He was an associate with Covington and Burling in Washington DC, from 1960
to 1963.
A regular speaker at conferences, seminars and courses on international commercial
arbitration throughout the world, he has also co-authored reference works and written
numerous articles on arbitration as well as on other international commercial legal issues.

Taner Dedezade
Taner Dedezade is a barrister, with some 20 years’ experience, specialising in the resolu-
tion of international construction and engineering disputes, mostly concerning projects
under the FIDIC Books, representing both international contractors and employers and
undertaking advocacy as necessary in both DAB and arbitration proceedings. His expertise
has been recognised with his ranking in Chambers UK 2016 – Construction: International
Arbitration UK-wide with clients saying he ‘has the ability to link the FIDIC to the legal
context of different countries’.
He is an accredited FIDIC trainer and has presented many FIDIC seminars around the
world on both FIDIC Contracts and FIDIC Claims. He also lectures on FIDIC for the
King’s MSc course. He is a published author and an accredited TECBAR Adjudicator.

xviii
 BIOGRAPHIES

After reading law he was called to the Bar of England and Wales in 1996 and practised
as a barrister for just over 10 years, appearing in numerous cases in the courts and tri-
bunals of England and Wales including the Court of Appeal. He has an MSc (Merit) in
Construction Law and Arbitration from King’s College, London (including the Bickerdike-
Allen prize), and a diploma (Merit) in International Commercial Arbitration from Queen
Mary College, London (achieving a distinction in his dissertation).

Domenico Di Pietro
Domenico Di Pietro focuses his professional practice on international arbitration with
Bryan Cave LLP in London. Domenico has also extensive experience of working in other
countries such as Japan and Italy. He has acted in a great variety of arbitrations worldwide
including reported commercial and investment disputes as well as sport disputes at the
Olympics. He also frequently serves as an arbitrator.
He lectures international arbitration at University of Rome ‘Roma Tre’ School of law and
is a past fellow of New York University School of Law. He has published extensively
on international arbitration.
He is a freeman of the Worshipful Company of Arbitrators, Corporation of London, as well as
a founding member of Arbit, the Italian Forum for Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of
the ICC Commission and a member of the Institute of Business Law of the ICC.
He graduated in Law at ‘La Sapienza’, University of Rome, and received his LLM from
Queen Mary, University of London. He is qualified to practise in Italy and in England
and Wales.

Nicholas Gould
Nicholas Gould BSc (Hons) LLM FRICS FCIArb MCIOB is a partner in the special-
ist construction, engineering and energy lawyers Fenwick Elliott LLP, where he
conducts a mix of international dispute resolution and non-contentious work. He is
a solicitor-advocate, chartered surveyor, accredited adjudicator and CEDR Chambers
lead mediator. He acts for contractors, employers and governments in the building,
construction, engineering, infrastructure, transport, energy, oil and gas, and process
engineering sectors. Dispute resolution experience spans litigation, arbitration
(domestic and international), adjudication, DAB/DRB, mediation, early neutral evalu-
ation and expert determination. He regularly acts as lead mediator in multi-party
multi-million disputes. He is a certified adjudicator and sits on international dispute
boards and as arbitrator.
He is ‘rated very highly within the industry’, he is noted for his strong market presence
in the Middle East and his talent for both contentious and transactional work (Chambers &
Partners 2017). ‘Clients also recommend the “eloquent” Nicholas Gould, who has “excel-
lent advocacy skills”’ (Legal 500, 2016, FE listed as Tier 1). The IBA’s 2008 & 2013
edition of International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers Today listed him as one of the
‘ten most highly regarded individuals internationally for construction law’ and the IBA’s
Who’s Who Legal 2015 listed him in the top five in Europe.

xix
 BIOGRAPHIES

He is a vice president of the ICC’s Arbitration Commission and visiting professor at

King’s College London. He is past Chairman of the Society of Construction Law, Adju-
dication Society and the DRBF (Region 2). He has published widely in the area of
construction law and dispute resolution, and speaks regularly on construction law and
dispute resolution. Nicholas is lead author of the report ‘Mediating Construction Disputes:
An Evaluation of Existing Practice’ published in February 2010; it received a finalists
CEDR Award for Excellence in 2010.
Gideon E Kamya-Lukoda
Gideon E Kamya-Lukoda is a chartered engineer, and a member of the Chartered Institu-
tion of Highways & Transportation, with experience in the project and programme man-
agement of capital projects, project/programme reviews, and programme/causation delay
analysis in technology and construction disputes. He has worked in PwC’s capital projects
advisory practice since 2012. Prior to PwC, he worked for international building and civil
engineering consultants as well as in research. Gideon’s experience covers the transport,
real estate, technology, energy and utilities sectors where he has undertaken various roles
covering the coordination, development, review and interrogation of complex project
planning and scheduling of major projects and programmes. Drawing on his experience
in the use of capital project planning techniques on large-scale infrastructure projects
with the aid of various scheduling tools including Primavera P6, MS Project and other
tools, he has worked across a wide variety of large infrastructure projects helping clients
both develop their portfolio and project schedules, in addition to providing analytical
review to highlight potential areas of risk and support dispute resolution. Gideon has on
a number of occasions provided support during oral hearings at both international and
domestic arbitrations, as well as at the Technology and Construction Court in the UK.

Christina Lockwood
Christina Lockwood is a commercial mediator accredited with CEDR and the Chartered
Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb). Christina was recently accredited as workplace mediator
with ADR Group, and trained as family mediator with the FMA. She mediates fluently
in English, German and Spanish. Christina qualified as a lawyer in Germany and England,
with a PhD in law, then worked at WestLB, London Branch in the field of international
finance. Since 2008, Christina conducted 300 telephone mediations in the insurance,
funeral and travel industry, and mediated neighbour disputes. She conducted adjudications
in landlord–tenant disputes and the postal redress service of the Royal Mail.
Christina Lockwood is a consultant to Fenwick Elliott LLP. Following a wide consulta-
tion on dispute boards, she drafted the CIArb Dispute Board Rules with Nicholas Gould.
Christina also devised the CIArb’s dispute board members training course in 2015.

Anthony J Morgan
Anthony Morgan is a Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers with experience of
international construction project management. He has been a partner in PwC’s capital
projects advisory practice since 2001. Prior to PwC, he worked for international building
and civil engineering contractors. He has planned and executed projects both in the UK

xx
 BIOGRAPHIES

and overseas and has key knowledge of best practice procedures for project and risk
management on major projects. He has advised on the contract strategy for the procure-
ment of framework agreements, PPP and D&B projects. He has advised both public and
private sector organisations on the delivery of capital projects and programmes. He has
wide experience of programming matters in dispute resolution and of analysing delay
and disruption effects on international construction projects. He has acted as a program-
ming expert witness on more than 50 occasions and given evidence in both international
and domestic arbitrations. He has contributed to ‘Proving and Pricing Construction Claims’,
‘Litigation Support’ and his paper ‘How poor project governance causes delays’ is pub-
lished by the Society of Construction Law.

Sir Vivian Ramsey

Sir Vivian Ramsey qualified as a civil engineer before joining the English Bar, becoming
a QC in 1992. He was head of Keating Chambers in London before being appointed a
High Court judge in 2005 where he became judge in charge of the Technology and
Construction Court from 2007 to 2010. Following his retirement, he was appointed as
an International Judge in the Singapore International Commercial Court and acts as an
arbitrator, mediator, expert and dispute board member around the world. He is a Visiting
Professor at King’s College, London and edits Keating on Construction Contracts, now
in its 10th edition. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering.

Patricia Shaughnessy
Patricia Shaughnessy directs the Master of International Commercial Arbitration Law
Program (LLM) at Stockholm University, and teaches and researches in related fields.
She chairs the ‘Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Section’ of the Stockholm Centre for
Commercial Law. Patricia is the Vice-Chair of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm
Chamber of Commerce (SCC) and has served on its board since 2006. She has been an
active member of the SCC committees that have drafted the SCC Rules, including the
new 2017 Rules. Recently she served as a government-appointed expert in the committee
that has proposed revisions to the Swedish Arbitration Act. She has acted as an arbitrator
and expert in international cases and, as a consultant, she has led numerous projects
related to commercial law and dispute resolution in a number of countries.

John Uff
John Uff is an international arbitrator and mediator, having qualified and practised initially
in engineering and subsequently in law. He practised in the chambers of Donald Keating
QC, becoming head of chambers up to 1997 while also developing an arbitration practice
covering all of the major international arbitral institutions, and with cases ranging from
the Far East and Middle East, Australasia, USA and Europe. In 1987, he became the
founding director of the Centre for Construction Law at Kings College and was the Nash
Professor of Engineering Law to 2002. He has written extensively on construction law
and dispute resolution and published a series of standard texts for the Centre for Con-
struction Law. He has conducted a number of public inquiries both in UK and overseas
and was appointed CBE in 2002 for services to rail safety.

xxi
 TA B L E O F C AS E S

Abu Dhabi
Case No. 1/2012, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 9 October 2012 .................11.13
Case No. 55/2014, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation; and Appeal No. 282/2012,
Real Estate Cassation of 3 February 2013 ..........................................................................11.14
Case No. 70/2012, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 12 December 2012 ..........11.10
Case No. 108/2009, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 12 March 2009 ..............11.20
Case No. 186/Judicial Year 2, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 8 June 2008 .........11.11
Case No. 218/2006, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 17 October 2006 ...........11.11
Case No. 325/2011, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 6 November 2011 ..........11.11
Case No. 404/Judicial Year 18, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 6 May 1997 ........ 11.13
Case No. 458/2009, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 26 July 2009..................11.10
Case No. 679/2010, Explosivos Alaveses v United Management Chile Ltd, ruling of
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation ............................................................................................11.57
Case No. 719/2011, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation of 10 May 2012 .................11.18
Case No. 2847/2013, ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance of 12 February 2014 .......11.14
Explosivos Alaveses v United Management Chile Ltd, Case No. 679/2010, ruling of
Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation ............................................................................................11.57

Australia
Comandate Marine Corp v Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 192
(Australian Fed Ct) ...................................................................................................................2.7
Resort Condominiums International Inc (USA) v Ray Bolwell and Resort
Condominuims (Australasia) Pty Ltd (Australia), (1994) 9(4) Mealesy’s
IAR A1 (1995)............................................................................................. 14.93, 14.94, 14.118
United Group Rail Services Ltd v Rail Corpn New South Wales (2009) 127
Con LR 202 ................................................................................................................................. 3.23

Austria
Judgment of 2 August 2008 (Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof ) (2009) 34 Yearbook
Commercial Arbitration 404
Bahrain ...........................................................................................................................................2.45
Civil Case No. 1470/2012, Senior Civil Court, Chamber 3 .....................................................11.59

Belgium
Matermaco SA v PPM Cranes Inc, Legris Industries SA, Tribunal de Commerce
[Court of First Instance] (2000) 25 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 641–1164
(Belgium) ................................................................................................................................2.24

xxiii
 TABLE OF CASES

Dubai
Airmech Dubai LLC v Maxtel International LLC, Appeal No. 126/2011 Commercial,
ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 22 February 2012 ............................................11.60
Airmech Dubai LLC v Maxtel International LLC, Case No. 132/2012, ruling of the
Dubai Court of Cassation of 18 September 2012 ...............................................................11.57
Al Reyami Group LLC v RTI Befestigungstechnik GmbH & Co KG, Case No. 434/2013,
ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 23 November 2014) ................ 11.18, 11.57, 11.58
Al-Firjan LLC v JNR Development Ltd, Case No. 310/2015, ruling of the Dubai Court of
Cassation of 27 April 201 ....................................................................................................11.18
Appeal No. 282/2012, Real Estate Cassation, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of
3 February 2013 ....................................................................................................... 11.16, 11.19
Baiti Real Estate Development v Dynasty Zarooni Inc, Case No. 14/2012, ruling of
Dubai Court of Cassation of 16 September 2012 ...............................................................11.14
Banyan Tree Corporate PTE Ltd v Meydan Group LLC, Case No. ARB 003/2013,
ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance of 27 May 2014 ...................... 11.30, 11.32, 11.66
Bechtel case, International Bechtel Co Ltd v Department of Civil Aviation of the
Government of Dubai, Case No. 503/2003, ruling of the Dubai Court of Appeal of
11 April 2005 ........................................................................................................................11.10
Canal de Jonglei, Case No. 156/2013, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of
18 August 2013......................................................................................................... 11.57, 11.80
Case CA-005–2014, ruling of the DIFC Court of Appeal of 3 November 2014 ......................11.30
Case No. 14/2012, Baiti Real Estate Development v Dynasty Zarooni Inc, ruling of
Dubai Court of Cassation of 16 September 2012 ...............................................................11.14
Case No. 44/2008, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 22 April 2008 ..........................11.10
Case No. 53/2011, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 7 December 2011 ....................11.10
Case No. 73/2010, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 9 May 2010 .............................11.10
Case No. 132/2012, Airmech Dubai LLC v Maxtel International LLC, ruling of
the Dubai Court of Cassation of 18 September 2012.........................................................11.57
Case No. 140/2007, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 7 October 2007 .....................11.10
Case No. 156/2009, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 27 October 2009 ........11.11, 11.13
Case No. 156/2013, Canal de Jonglei, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of
18 August 2013......................................................................................................... 11.57, 11.80
Case No. 167/1998, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 6 June 1998 ...........................11.10
Case No. 167/2002, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 2 July 2002 ............................11.20
Case No. 178/1996, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 25 January 1997 ......................11.9
Case No. 180/2011, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 12 February 2012 ..................11.14
Case No. 190/1998, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 10 November 1998 ...............11.45
Case No. 191/2009, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 13 September 2009 ........11.13, 11.45
Case No. 199/2014, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 21 August 2016 .......................11.9
Case No. 211/2014, Meydan Group LLC v Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Ltd, ruling of
the Dubai Court of Appeal ...................................................................................................11.33
Case No. 249/2013, Middle East Foundations LLC v Meydan Group LLC
( formerly Meydan LLC), Commercial Appeal, ruling of the Dubai Court of
Appeal of 15 January 2014 ..................................................................................................11.79
Case No. 261/2002, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 2 November 2002 .................11.10
Case No. 295/1993, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 30 January 1994 ....................11.10
Case No. 310/2015, Al-Firjan LLC v JNR Development Ltd, ruling of the Dubai Court of
Cassation of 27 April 201 ....................................................................................................11.18
Case No. 322/2004, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 15 May 2005 ............. 11.10, 11.60
Case No. 400/2001, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 16 February 2002 ..................11.45

xxiv
 TABLE OF CASES

Case No. 434/2013, Al Reyami Group LLC v RTI Befestigungstechnik GmbH &
Co KG, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 23 November 2014) ..... 11.18, 11.57, 11.58
Case No. 455/1998, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 30 January 1999 ....................11.10
Case No. 503/2003, Bechtel case, International Bechtel Co Ltd v Department of
Civil Aviation of the Government of Dubai, ruling of the Dubai Court of
Appeal of 11 April 2005 .......................................................................................... 11.10, 11.60
Case No. 531/2011, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation .....................................................11.57
Case No. 537/1999, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 23 April 2000 ........................11.13
Case No. 573/2003, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 5 June 2004 ...........................11.45
Case No. 581/2003, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 12 June 2004 ........................11.10
Case No. 693/2015, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 10 April 2016 ........................11.58
Case No. ARB 002/2013, ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance, undated 2014 ........ 11.31, 11.66
Case No. ARB 003/2013, Banyan Tree Corporate PTE Ltd v Meydan Group LLC,
ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance of 27 May 2014 ...................... 11.30, 11.32, 11.66
Case No. ARB 005–2014, ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance of 29 July 2015..........11.32
Case No. CA-005–2014, Meydan Group LLC v Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Ltd,
ruling of the DIFC Court of Appeal of 3 November 2014 ................................................11.32
Case No. DWT/0001/2013, CDM Smith, Inc. v Nakheel PJSC ................................................11.24
Case No. XX, X1, X2 v Y1, Y2, ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance of
29 July 2015 ............................................................................................................. 11.31, 11.32
Cassation No. 1/2016 (JT), Daman Real Capital Partners Company LLC v
Oger Dubai LLC, hearing of 19 December 2016 ...............................................................11.35
Cassation No. 2/2016 (JT), Dubai Water Front LLC v Chenshan Liu, hearing of
19 December 2016 ...............................................................................................................11.35
Cassation No. 100/2004, ruling of 9 January 2005 ....................................................................11.10
CDM Smith, Inc. v Nakheel PJSC Case No. DWT/0001/2013 .................................................11.24
CFI 026/2014, Standard Chartered Bank v Investment Group Private Ltd, ruling of
the DIFC Court of First Instance of 1 August 2016...........................................................11.35
Commercial Case No. 1619/2016, ruling of the Dubai Court of First Instance of 15 February 2017 .... 11.33
Daman Real Capital Partners Company LLC v Oger Dubai LLC, Cassation No. 1/2016 (JT),
hearing of 19 December 2016 .............................................................................................11.35
Dubai Water Front LLC v Chenshan Liu, Cassation No. 2/2016 (JT), hearing of
19 December 2016 ...............................................................................................................11.35
Fluor Transworld Services v Petrixo Oil & Gas Dubai Court of Appeal’s judgment of
30 March 2016 .....................................................................................................................11.57
Hedley International Emirates Contracting LLC v Nakheel PJSC, DWT/0017/2011,
ruling of 11 July 2011 ..........................................................................................................11.23
International Bechtel Co Ltd v Department of Civil Aviation of the Government of
Dubai, Case No. 503/2003, ruling of the Dubai Court of Appeal of 11 April 2005 ........11.60
Meydan Group LLC v Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Ltd, Case No. CA-005–2014,
ruling of the DIFC Court of Appeal of 3 November 2014 ................................................11.32
Meydan Group LLC v Banyan Tree Corporate Pte Ltd, Case No. 211/2014, ruling of
the Dubai Court of Appeal ...................................................................................................11.33
Middle East for Development LLC v Safir Real Estate Investments LLC, Appeal
No. 293/2015, ruling of the Dubai Court of Cassation of 27 January 2016 .....................11.18
Middle East Foundations LLC v Meydan Group LLC ( formerly Meydan LLC), Case
No. 249/2013, Commercial Appeal, ruling of the Dubai Court of Appeal of
15 January 2014 ...................................................................................................................11.79
Palm Jebel Ali LLC v Alan Stenet, Appeal No. 547/2014, ruling of the Dubai Court of
Cassation of 21 October 2015 .............................................................................................11.18

xxv
 TABLE OF CASES

Property Concepts FZE v Lootah Network Real Estate & Commercial Brokerage,
D-L9008, ARB 001/2010 .....................................................................................................11.31
Standard Chartered Bank v Investment Group Private Ltd, CFI 026/2014, ruling of
the DIFC Court of First Instance of 1 August 2016...........................................................11.35
X1, X2 v Y, Case ARB 001/2014, Order of the Dubai Court of First Instance of
5 January 2014 .....................................................................................................................11.32
X1, X2 v Y1, Y2, Case No. XX, ruling of the DIFC Court of First Instance of
29 July 2015 ............................................................................................................. 11.31, 11.32

Egypt
Cairo Court of Appeal, Appeals Nos. 35, 41, 44, and 45/Judicial Year 129, Hearing of
5 February 2013 ...................................................................................................................11.18
Case No. 39, Judicial Year 130/2014, decision of Cairo Court of Appeal of
5 February 2014 ...................................................................................................................11.82
Case No. 714/Judicial Year 47, ruling of the Egyptian Court of Cassation of
26 April 1982........................................................................................................................11.63
Cases Nos 20, 64/128 and 16, 20, 47/129, ruling of the Cairo Court of Appeal of
7 April 2013..........................................................................................................................11.63
Challenge No. 20/Judicial Year 124, ruling of the Cairo Court of Appeal; ..............................11.63
Challenges Nos 20 and 64/ Judicial Year 128, ruling of the Cairo Court of Appeal,
Hearing of 7 April 2013 .......................................................................................................11.63
Challenge No. 495/72, Egyptian Court of Cassation, Hearing of 13 January 2004 .................11.10
Challenge No. 815/Judicial Year 52, ruling of the Egyptian Court of Cassation of
21 May 1990.........................................................................................................................11.63
Challenge No. 1259/49, ruling of the Egyptian Court of Cassation of 13 June 1983 ..............11.63
Challenge No. 2010/64, Egyptian Court of Cassation, Hearing of 22 January 200 ...................11.9
Challenge No. 10132/78, ruling of the Egyptian Court of Cassation of 11 May 2010 ............11.63
Challenge No. 12790/75, ruling of the Egyptian Court of Cassation of 22 March 2011 .........11.63
Chromalloy case, Challenge No. 16/1994, Cairo Court of Appeal, Hearing of
5 December 1995 .................................................................................................................11.13
Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corporation v Arab Republic of Egypt 939 F Supp 907
(DDC 1996) ................................................................................................................ 2.41, 10.34

England and Wales

ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne and Others [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 511 (QB) ......................12.2
Abner Soleimany v Sion Soleimany [1998] APPLR 02/19........................................................10.24
Abuja International Hotels Ltd v Meridien SAS [2012] EWHC 87 (Comm),
[2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 461 ...................................................................................2.10, 2.19, 2.21
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown [2001] 1 AC 518 (HL) ....................................5.23
AMEC Civil Engineering v Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC) ............. 3.8
Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc [1991] 2 AC 93 (HL)................................... 12.17, 12.20
Arsanovia Ltd & others v Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings [2012] EWHC 3702 (Comm),
[2013] 2 All ER (Comm) 1 (QB) ..................................................................2.16, 2.17, 13.142,
13.143, 13.144
Arts & Antiques Ltd v Richards [2013] EWHC 3361 (Comm) ....................................................5.9
Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Company of
Zurich [2003] UKPC 11, [2003] 1 WLR 1041 ...................................................................12.13
Aveat Heating Ltd v Jerram Falkus Construction Ltd [2007] EWHC 131 (TCC)..................13.107
Aviation Fuelling Co KSC [1975] QB 224 (CA) ........................................................................2.25
Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Ltd [1996] 1 WLR 257 .................................................12.23

xxvi
 TABLE OF CASES

Bay Hotel and Resort Ltd v Cavalier Constructions Co Ltd [2001] UKPC 34 ............................5.1
Black Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof- Aschaffenburg AG [1981]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 446 (QB) 455 .................................................................................................2.19
Bouygues (UK) Ltd v Dahl-Jensen (UK) Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 507 ..............13.18, 13.19, 13.21
Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226 .......................................................................................4.49
C v D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282 ..................................................................................2.10, 2.19, 2.21
Cable & Wireless plc v IBM United Kingdom Ltd [2002] EWHC 2059 (Comm),
[2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1041.................................................................................... 3.11, 3.15
Caresse Navigation Ltd v Office National de l’Electricité [2014] EWCA Civ 1366,
[2015] QB 366 ......................................................................................................................5.18
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd [1967] 1 AC 853 (HL) 919 ..................... 12.14, 12.17,
12.19, 12.20
Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1993] 1 All ER 664,
[1993] 2 WLR 262, 682, [1993] AC 334........................................... 2.5, 2.6, 2.10, 2.19, 2.20,
3.33, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11
Chantiers De L’Atlantique SA v Gaztransport & Technigaz SAS [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) .......12.34
City & General (Holborn) Ltd v AYH plc [2005] EWHC 2494 (TCC)........................................5.6
Clarke v Earl of Dunraven (The Satanita) [1895] P 248 (CA) ....................................................5.34
Clarke v Earl of Dunraven (The Satanita) [1897] AC 59 (HL) ................................5.29, 5.34, 5.35
Collins (Contractors) Ltd v Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1757,
[2005] BLR 63 .........................................................................................................................3.8
Courtney & Fairbairn v Tolaini Brothers (Hotels) Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 297 ..................................3.9
Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co v Pakistan [2010] UKSC 46, [2011] 1 AC 763 .....5.10,
12.9, 12.20, 12,25
Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Pakistan [2009] EWCA Civ 755;
[2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 119 ........................................................................................ 10.37, 12.20
Deutsche Schachtbau v Shell International Petroleum Co Ltd [1987] 3 WLR 1023,
[1990] 1 AC 295 (CA) .............................................................................................. 2.27, 12.35
Diag Human SE v Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) ................................ 12.33, 12.36
Dowans Holding SA v Tanzania Electric Supply Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 1957 (Comm) .........10.38
DST v Rakoil [1988] 3 WLR 230 (HL) .......................................................................................2.27
DSV Silo-und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Owners of The Sennar (The Sennar)
(No 2), [1985] 1 WLR 490 (HL) ........................................................................................12.18
Emirates Trading Agency LLC v Prime Mineral Exports Pte Ltd [2014]
EWHC 2104 (Comm), [2015] 1 WLR 1145 .....................................................3.21, 3.22, 3.23,
3.24, 3.25, 3.27
Epping Electrical Co Ltd v Briggs & Forester (Plumbing Services) Ltd [2007]
EWHC 4 (TCC)..................................................................................................................13.107
Fidelitas Shipping Co Ltd v V/O Exportchleb [1966] 1 QB 630 (CA) ....................................12.13
Fiona Trust v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40 .............................................................................. 2.6, 2.47
Fortress Value Recovery Fund I LLC v Blue Skye Special Opportunities Fund LP
[2013] EWCA Civ 367, [2013] 1 WLR 3466............................................................. 5.15, 5.21
Golden Ocean Group Ltd v Humpuss Intermoda Transportaski TBK Ltd [2013]
EWHC 1240 (Comm)...............................................................................................................5.9
Habas Sinai Ve Tibbi Gazlar Istihsal Endustrisi AS v VSC Steel Co Ltd [2013]
EWHC 4071 (Comm)..................................................................................2.22, 13.145, 13.146
Halpern v Halpern [2006] EWHC 603 (Comm), [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 83................................2.29
Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313 (Ch) .............................12.3, 12.23, 12.39
Hiscox v Outwaite [1992] AC 562 (QB) ......................................................................................12.1
Holloway v Chancery Mead Ltd [2007] EWHC 2495 (TCC), [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 653 ..... 3.11, 3.15

xxvii
 TABLE OF CASES

Hunter v Chief Constable of West Midland Police [1982] AC 529 (HL) 536..........................12.22
Hussman (Europe) Ltd v Al Almeen Development and Trade Co [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 83 ........2.6
International Research Corpn plc v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2013]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 24 ....................................................................................................................3.25
Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40 ................................................................................................4.9
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a Firm) [2000] 2 AC 1 (HL) .................................12.3, 12.23, 12.25
Lafarge Redland Aggregates Ltd v Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Ltd [2001]
1 WLR 1621 (HL) ....................................................................................................................5.6
Les Affréteurs Réunis SA v Leopold Walford (London) Ltd [1919] AC 801(HL) .....................5.17
London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Spain (‘The Prestige’)
[2015] EWCA Civ 333, [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 33, [2015] CP Rep 31, [2015]
1 CLC 596 ..............................................................................................................................5.18
Macob Civil Engineering v Morrison Construction Ltd [1999] EWHC
Technology 254 .............................................................................................13.16, 13.19, 13.21
Malicorp Ltd v Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt, Egyptian Holding
Company for Aviation, Egyptian Airports Company [2015] EWHC 361 (Comm)...........12.36
Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair [2012] EWHC 2560 (Comm) ...........................................5.9
Minmetals Germany GmbH v Ferco Steel Ltd [1999] 1 All ER (Comm), [1999]
CLC 647 ................................................................................................................... 12.11, 12.29
Mitsubishi Corporation v Castletown Navigation Ltd, The Castle Alpha [1989]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 (QB) ........................................................................................................2.25
Musawi v RE International (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2981 (Ch), [2008] 1 All ER
(Comm) 607............................................................................................................................2.29
National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA [2009] EWCA (Civ) 1397 .........................12.20
Nelson v Couch (1863), 15 CBNS 99, [108]..............................................................................12.13
Niagara Maritime SA v Tianjin Iron & Steel Group Co Ltd [2011] EWHC 303 .......................5.18
Nisshin Shipping Co Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602 (Comm) [2004]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 38 ................................................................................................5.15, 5.17, 5.18,
5.19, 5.20
Peterborough City Council v Enterprise Managed Services Ltd [2014]
EWHC 3193 (TCC)................................................................... 13.114, 13.115, 13.116, 13.117,
13.118, 13.119, 14.5, 15.27
Peterson Farms Inc v C&M Farming Ltd [2004] EWHC 121 (Comm), [2004] 1 Lloyd’s
Rep 603. 73 German Federal Supreme Court dated 8 May 2014 (Case Reference
No III ZR 371/12 ...................................................................................................................2.34
Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras (No.3) [2005] EWCA Civ 891, [2006]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 121. ...............................................................................................................3.10
Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357 .................................................................13.76
Rainbow Estates Ltd v Tokenhold [1999] Ch 64 .......................................................................14.59
Recher’s Will Trusts, Re [1972] Ch 526 .......................................................................................5.29
Robertson v Wait (1853) 8 Ex 299................................................................................................5.17
Shashoua v Sharma [2009] EWHC 957 (Comm) .........................................................................2.19
Sheltam Rail Co (Pty) Ltd v Mirambo Holdings Ltd [2008] EWHC 829 (Comm),
[2009] Bus LR 302 ..............................................................................................................12.28
Sonatrach Petroleum Corp v Ferrell International Ltd [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 627 ...............2.10
Sulamérica Cia Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engelharia SA [2012] EWCA Civ 638,
[2013] 1 WLR 10 ...................................................................2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15,
2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.23, 2.28, 2.40, 2.46,
3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 13.138, 13.139,
13.140, 13.141, 13.143

xxviii
 TABLE OF CASES

Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd v Oil and Natural Gas Commission [1994]
1 Lloyd’s Rep 45 (QB) 57 .....................................................................................................2.19
Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada v Lincoln National Life Insurance Co [2004]
EWCA (Civ) 1660, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 606 ...................................................................12.13
Union of India v McDonnell Douglas Corporation [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 48 (QB) .................12.1
Urang Commercial Ltd v Century Investments Ltd [2011] EWHC 1561 (TCC) .....................13.21
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd)
[2013] UKSC 46, [2013] 3 WLR 29....................................................................... 12.15, 12.16
Wah v Grant Thornton International Ltd [2012] EWHC 3198 (Ch) .......................3.16, 3.17, 3.18,
3.19, 3.20, 3.22
Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128 (HL) ............................................................................... 3.9, 3.31
Welex AG v Rosa Maritime Ltd (The Epsilon Rosa) (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 938 ...............5.18
Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport SPDR Holding Co Ltd [1999] 3 WLR 811 (CA) ....... 12.35
Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport SPDR Holding Co Ltd [2000] QB 288,
[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65 ........................................................................................................4.49
Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Co Ltd [1999] APPLR 05/12 ...........10.24
WN Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd (1932) 147 LT 503 ..................................................................3.9
XL Insurance Ltd v Owens Corning [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 530 (QB) .................................2.19
Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co (No 2) [2012] EWCA Civ 855 ................ 12,14, 12.34
Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co [2011] EWHC 1461 (Comm), [2012]
1 All ER (Comm) 479, [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 443.............................................................12.14
Yukos Oil Co v Dardana Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 543...................................................... 12.9, 12.11

European Union
Allianz SpA v West Tankers Inc [2009] ECR 1–663 .....................................................................4.9
Horst Ludwig Martin Hoffmann v Adelheid Krieg, Case 145/86, 1988 ECR 645 ...................12.14
X GmbH v Y Sarl, 4A 46/2011 ........................................................................................... 3.28, 3.29

France
Coralsa Corporacion Alimentaria S.A. v Ingelco, Paris Court of Appeal, 20 January 2015,
Revue de l’arbitrage, 2015, 803 ............................................................................................6.33
Denis Coakley Ltd v Sté Michel Reverdy, Cour d’appel of Reims (Civil Chamber),
23 July 1981, (1984) IX Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 400.......................................12.30
Gouvernement du Pakistan v Société Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co,
Cour d’appel de Paris, Pôle 1 – Ch 1, n° 09/28533 (17 February 2011)
(www.practicallaw.com/8-505-0043)......................................................................................5.10
Hecht v Busiman’s 4 July 1972, 99 Journal du Droit International (1972) 843
(French Supreme Court) .........................................................................................................2.6
Hilmarton Ltd v Omnium de Traitement et de Valorisation-OTV, Court de Cassation,
9 October 1994, (1995) XX Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 665 ...................................12.8
Hilmarton Ltd v OTV, Cour de cassation, 23 March 1994 (1995) 20 Yearbook
Commercial Arbitration 663.................................................................................................10.33
KIS France SA v SA Société Générale 31 October 1989, 1992 Rev Arb 90
(Cour d’appel Paris) ...............................................................................................................2.34
Maximov v NLMK, Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris, 16 May 2012 ............10.31, 10.32, 10.33
Medissimo v Logica, 29 April 2014, No 12–27.004 ....................................................................3.30
Municipalité de Khoms El Mergeb v Société Dalico, 1994 Rev Arb 116, 117
(French Cour de cassation civ 1e) ......................................................................2.30, 2.32, 2.40
Pablak v Norsolor Cour de Cassation, 9 October 1984, Court d’appel, Paris,
19 November 1982, (1986) XI Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 484 ..............................12.8

xxix
 TABLE OF CASES

Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co v Société Générale de l’Industrie du Papier 508

F2d 969 (2d Cir 1974) .........................................................................................................12.35
Poiré v Tripier, JurisData No 2003–017812..................................................................................3.30
Polish Ocean Line v Jolasry, Cour de Cassation, 10 March 1993, (1994) XIX Yearbook
Commercial Arbitration 663...................................................................................................12.8
PT Putrabali Adyamulia v Rena Holding, Cour de cassation, 29 June 2007 ............................10.33
Renault v V 2000, Judgment of 21 May 1997, 1997 Rev Arb 537 (French Cour
de Cassation civ 1e) ...............................................................................................................2.31
SA Burkinabe des ciments et matériaux v Société des ciments d’Abidjan, Judgment of
25 November 1999, 2001 Rev Arb 165 (Paris Cour d’appel) .............................................2.31
Société d’études et représentations navales et industrielles v Société Air Sea Broker Ltd,
Judgment of 8 July 2009, 2009 Rev Arb 529 (French Cour de Cassation civ 1e) .............2.31
Société Korsnas Marma v Société Durand-Auzias Nov 30 1988 (Cour d’appel Paris) ............2.34
Société Ofer Brothers v The TokyoMarine and Fire Insurance Co Ltd et autres
14 Feb 1989, 1989 Rev Arb 691 (Cour d’appel Paris) ........................................................2.34
Société SNF SAS v Société Cytec Industries BV, Revue de l’arbitrage 2007, 100 .................10.25
Société Uni-Kod v Société Ouralkali, Judgment of 30 March 2004, 2005 Rev Arb 959
(French Cour de Cassation civ 1e) ........................................................................................2.31
Thales Air Defence v GIE Euromissile and EADS France, 1er Ch. sect C, 18 November 2004 ......10.25

Germany
H v F in liquidation, Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, 4 January 2012, 9 Sch 02/ 09
and Bundesgerichtshof, III ZB 8/12, 20 December 2012 ...................................................12.24
Manufacturer v Buyer, Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Frankfurt am Main,
26 June 2006, XXXII Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 351, 26 Sch 28/05, (2007) ........12.2
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Munich, 23 November 2009 and Bundesgerichtshof
[Federal Supreme Court], Third Civil Chamber, 16 December 2010, (2011) XXXVI
Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 273, III ZB 100/09.........................................................12.2
Oberlandesgericht [Court of Appeal], Schleswig, 30 March 2000, XXXI Yearbook
Commercial Arbitration 652 (2006).......................................................................................12.2

Hong Kong
Heibei Import & Export Corp v Polytek Engineering Co Ltd (1999) HKCFAR 111.................12.2
Paklito Ltd v Klockner East Asia Ltd [1993] 2 HKLR 39 ..........................................................12.2

ICC
Dow Chemical Company v ISOVER Saint Gobain, Interim Award, ICC Case No 4131,
23 September 1982 (1984) 9 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 131 ....................... 2.32, 2.34
ICC Case No 2626 (1977) Collection of ICC Arbitral Awards, Vol I (1974–1985)
(Kluwer Law International 1994) 316 ...................................................................................2.10
ICC Case No 3131, award of 26 October 1979 (1984) 9 Yearbook Commercial
Arbitration 109 and ICC Case No 5103................................................................................2.34
ICC Case No 6162 in (1992) 17 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 153 .....................................2.7
ICC Case No 6379 (1992) 17 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 211–220 ................................2.10
ICC Case No 6752 (1993) 18 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 54–57 ....................................2.10
ICC Case No 8502, 1996, 10(2) ICC Bulletin 72; Final Award in ICC Case No 1507 ...............2.7
ICC Case No. 101619 ...................................................................................................... 14.32, 14.61
ICC Case No. 11813/DK .............................................................................................................14.66
ICC Case No 11869 (2011) 36 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 47 ........................................2.45
ICC Case No. 15751/JHN ............................................................................................................14.33

xxx
 TABLE OF CASES

ICC Case No. 15956 ....................................................................................................................13.69

ICC Case No. 16119/GZ ............................................................................................................14.100
ICC Case No. 16262 ....................................................................................................................13.71
ICC Case No. 165705 ..................................................................................................................13.70
ICC Case No. 16948/GZ. .............................................................................................................14.33
ICC Case No. 16949/GZ ..............................................................................................................14.32

ICJ
South West Africa Case (Eth & Liber v S Afr), Second Phase, 1966 ICJ Rep 4, 240 (July 18) ......12.13

ICSID
ADC Affiliate Ltd and ADC & ADMC Management Ltd v The Republic of Hungary,
ICSID Case No ARB/03/16, Award dated 2 October 2006..................................................8.30
Ampal-American Israel Corporation and others v Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case
No. ARB/12/11
ArcelorMittal v Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/47, registered on 9 December 2015............11.71
Autopista Concesionada De Venezuela, CA v Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, ICSID
Case No ARB/00/5, Decision on Jurisdiction dated 27 September 2001 ............................8.31
Azurix Corp v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/01/12, Award dated 14 July 2006...... 9.13
Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AŞ v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID
Case No ARB/03/29, Decision on Jurisdiction dated 14 November 2005 ................ 8.30, 9.20
Beijing Urban Construction Group Co Ltd. v Yemen, ICSID Case No. ARB/04/30 ..... 8.30, 11.71
Compania de Aguas Del Aconquija SA and Vivendi Universal v Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/97/3, Award dated 20 August 2007 .......................9.11, 9.53, 9.54, 9.55
Consortium Groupement LESI-Dipenta v République algérienne démoratique et populaire,
ICSID Case No ARB/03/8, Award dated 10 January 2005 ..................................................8.44
Emmis v Hungary, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/2 ............................................................................ 9.8
Enron Corporation and Ponderosa Assets, LP v The Argentine Republic,
ICSID Case No ARB/01/3 ...................................................................................................14.57
Impregilo SpA v Islamic Republic of Pakistan, ICSID Case No ARB/03/3,
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 22 April 2005 ............................................................. 8.31, 9.11
Jan de Nul NV and Dredging International NV v Arab Republic of Egypt,
ICSID Case No ARB/04/13, Decision on Jurisdiction dated 16 June 2006 ........................8.30
Joy Mining Machinery Ltd v The Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No ARB/03/11,
Award on Jurisdiction dated 6 August 2004 .........................................................................8.33
Malicorp Ltd v Arab Republic of Egypt ICSID Case No ARB/08/18, Award dated
7 February 2011..................................................................................................8.30, 9.38, 9.39,
9.40, 11.71
Mihaly International Corporation v Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,
ICSID Case No ARB/00/2, Award dated 15 March 2002 ....................................................8.35
MTD Equity Sdn Bhd and MTD Chile SA v Republic of Chile, ICSID Case No ARB/01/7,
Award dated 25 May 2004.....................................................................................................8.31
Pantechniki SA Contractors & Engineers (Greece) v The Republic of Albania,
ICSID Case No ARB/07/21, Award, Dated 30 July 2009 ....................................................8.30
Phillips Petroleum v Iran, Award No. 425–39–2 dated 29 June 1989 ...........................................9.9
Phoenix Action Ltd v The Czech Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/06/5, Award dated
15 April 2009..........................................................................................................................8.23
PSEG Global Inc, The North American Coal Corporation, and Konya Ilgin Elektrik
Üretim ve Ticaret Ltd Sirketi v Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No ARB/02/5,
Decision on Jurisdiction dated 4 June 2004.................................................................. 8.3, 8.36

xxxi
 TABLE OF CASES

Quiborax SA, Non Metallic Minerals SA and Allan Fosk Kaplun v Plurinational State of
Bolivia, ICSID Case No ARB/06/2, Decision on jurisdiction, 27 September 2012 ...........8.44
Saipem SpA v The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, ICSID Case No ARB/05/07,
Decision on Jurisdiction and Recommendation on Provisional Measures dated
21 March 2007 .......................................................................................................................8.30
Salini Construction SpA and Italstrade SpA v Kingdom of Morocco, ICSID
Case No ARB/00/4, Decision on Jurisdiction dated 16 July 2001 ..................8.15, 8.16, 8.17,
8.18, 8.20, 8.29, 8.30
SGS v Republic of the Philippines, ICSID Case No ARB/02/6, Decision of
the Tribunal on Objection to Jurisdiction dated 29 January 2004 ............................. 9.46, 9.47
Siemens AG v The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No ARB/02/8, Award dated
6 February 2007 ........................................................................................ 9.10, 9.15, 9.17, 9.18
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona SA and Vivendi Universal SA v
The Argentine Republic ICSID Case No ARB/03/19, Decision on Liability dated
30 July 2010 ............................................................................................... 9.8, 9.14, 9.19, 9.24,
9.48, 9.49, 9.50, 9.51
Toto Costruzioni Generali Spa v Lebanon, Award of 7 June 2012, ICSID
Case No. ARB/07/12 ............................................................................................................11.71
Tulip Real Estate Investment and Development Netherlands BV v Republic of Turkey,
ICSID Case No ARB/11/28 ...................................................................................................3.26
Victor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile, ICSID
Case No ARB/98/2, Award dated 13 September 2016 .........................................................8.44
Vigotop Ltd v Hungary, ICSID Case No ARB/11/22, Award dated 1 October 2014 ...... 9.27, 9.28,
9.30, 9.31, 9.32, 9.33, 9.34,
9.35, 9.36, 9.37
Waste Management v Mexico, ICSID Case No ARB(AF)/00/3, Award dated
30 April 200............................................................................................... 9.42, 9.43, 9.44, 9.45

India
Aastha Broadcasting Network Ltd v Thaicom Public Co Ltd [2011] ........................................2.10
Citizen Bulk A/S v Ashapura Minechem Ltd AIR 2011 Guj 13 .................................................2.10
Enercon India v Enercon GMBH [Civ App 2086/7 of 2014] (India) ........................................2.10
International Investor KCSC v Sanghi Polyesters Ltd, High Court, Andhra Pradesh,
9 September 2002, (2005) XXX Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 577 ..........................12.30
M S Dozo India P Ltd v M/S Doosan Infracore Co [2010] INSC 839 ........................................2.7
National Thermal Power Corporation v The Singer Company, Supreme Court, 1978,
7 May 1992 (1993) 18 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 403–414 ...................................2.10

Italy
Della Sanara Kustvaart – Bevrachting & Overslagbedrijf BV v Fallimento Cap Giovanni
Coppola srl, in liquidation, Corte di Appello [Court of Appeal], Genoa, Not Indicated,
3 February 1990 (1992) 17 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 542–544 ..............................2.8

Netherlands
Kompas Overseas Inc v OAO Severnoe Rechnoe Parokhodstvo (Northern River
Shipping Company), Provisions Judge of the District Court of Amsterdam,
482043/KG RK 11–362, 10 May 2012, (2012) XXXVII Yearbook Commercial
Arbitration 279–280 ...............................................................................................................12.8
Owerri Commercial Inc v Dielle Srl, Gerechtshof [Court of Appeal] The Hague, Not
Indicated, 4 August 1993 (1994) 19 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 703–707 ..............2.24

xxxii
 TABLE OF CASES

Petrasol BV v Stolt Spur Inc, Arrondissementsrechtbank [Court of First Instance]

(1997) 22 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 762–765 (Netherlands) .................................2.24
Yukos Capital SARL v OAO Rosneft Amsterdam Court of Appeal case no. 200.005.269/01,
28 April 2009........................................................................................................................10.39

New Zealand
CBI v Badger Chiyoda, [1989] 2 NZLR 669 .............................................................................10.21

Oman
Cassation Appeal 280/2010, ruling of the Omani Supreme Court of 27 April 2011 ................11.59

Qatar
Case No. 704/2/2016, Hearing of 21 September 2016 Qatar Court of First Instance ..............11.62
Petition No. 64/2012, ruling of the Qatar Court of Cassation of 12 June 2012 .......................11.62
Petitions Nos 45 & 49/2014, ruling of the Qatar Court of Cassation of 25 March 2014 ........11.62

Scotland
Ritchie Brothers (Pwc) Ltd v David Philp (Commercials) Ltd [2005] Scot CSIH 32 ..........13.106,
13.107

Singapore
CRW Joint Operation v PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK [2011] SGCA 33,
[2011] 4 SLR 305.................................................................. 10.49, 10.50, 10.51, 10.52, 10.53,
14.10, 14.68, 14.69, 14.80
FirstLink Investments Corp Ltd v GT Payment Pte Ltd [2014] SGHCR 12 ................... 2.24, 2.46,
13.148, 13.149
Galsworthy Ltd v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 304 ......................................12.20
Government of the Republic of the Philippines v Philippine International Air Co [2007]
1 SLR 278 (Singapore) ..........................................................................................................2.24
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd v Toshin Development Singapore
Pte Ltd [2012] 4 SLR 378 .....................................................................................................3.25
PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation
[2014] SGHC 146.......................................................10.53, 10.54, 10.55, 10.56, 10.57, 10.58,
10.66, 13.110, 14.10, 14.70, 14.73,
14.74, 14.75, 14.76, 14.77, 14.123
PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation [2010]
SGHC 202............................................................................... 14.10, 14.32, 14.35, 14.68, 14.80
PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v CRW Joint Operation
[2015] SGCA 30 ............................................. 10.45, 10.46, 10.47, 10.48, 10.49, 10.50, 14.10,
14.18, 14.23, 14.24, 14.25, 14.26, 14.36, 14.37,
14.38, 14.43, 14.44, 14.48, 14.52, 14.66, 14.70,
14.78, 14.79, 14.80, 14.101, 14.102, 14.103, 14.106,
14.107, 14.108, 14.122, 14.123, 14.124, 14.125

South Africa
Esor Africa (Pty) Ltd/Franki Africa (Pty) Ltd JV v Bombela Civils JV (Pty) Ltd SGUC
case no. 12/7442 ...................................................................................................................14.66
Tubular Holdings (Pty) Ltd v DBT Technologies (Pty) Ltd (06757/2013 ZAGPJHC 155;
2014 SA 244 (GSJ) (3 May 2013) .......................................................................... 14.18, 14.66

xxxiii
 TABLE OF CASES

Sweden
Bulgarian Foreign Trade Bank Ltd v AI Trade Finance Inc, Swedish Supreme Court,
T 1881–99, 27 October 2000 (2001) 26 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration
291–298 (Sweden) ..................................................................................................................2.24

Switzerland
A v B (case no. 4A_124/2014) Swiss Federal Supreme Court (7 July 2014) ......... 13.120, 13.121,
13.122, 15.25, 15.26
Consortium Member A v Consortium Member B (Switzerland), Polimeles Protodikio
[Court of First Instance, Multi-Judge Panel], Rodopi, Decision No 84 of 2005 (2008)
33 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration 552–554.......................................................................2.8
Insurance Company v Reinsurance Company, Tribunal Fédéral [Supreme Court],
Not Indicated, 21 March 1995 (1997) 22 Yearbook Commercial Arbitration
800–806 (Switzerland) ................................................................................................... 2.8, 2.24

Syria
Al Zein & Al Moukaddam v Company for the Development and the Exploitation,
Beirut Court of Cassation Case No. 136, 31 October 2002 ...............................................11.15
Case No. 4/2005, ruling of the Beirut Court of Cassation of 11 January 2005 ........................11.18
Case No. 34/2001, ruling of the Beirut Court of Cassation of 19 July 2001 ...........................11.18
Case No. 773, ruling of the Beirut Court of Appeal of 28 May 2013 ......................................11.64

UAIACA
Mohamed Abdulmohsen Al-Kharafi & Sons Co v Libya, UAIACA Award of 22 March 2013 ...... 11.71

United Arab Emirates

Case No. 9/Judicial Year 20, ruling of the Federal Court of Cassation of 13 February 2000 .......11.19
Case No. 57/ Judicial Year 25, ruling of the Federal Supreme Court of 21 March 2006 ........11.19
Case No. 108/Judicial Year 3, ruling of the UAE Federal Court of Cassation of 12 March 2009......11.20
Case No. 35/2010, ruling of the Fujairah Court of First Instance of 27 April 2010
(no appeal) ...........................................................................................................................11.57
Case No. 53/2010, ruling of the UAE Federal Supreme Court of 21 April 2010 ....................11.11
Case No. 79/2011, ruling of the UAE Federal Supreme Court of 21 February 2012 ........ 11.10, 11.13

United States of America

Baker Marine (Nig) Ltd v Chevron (Nig) Ltd 191 F 3d 194, (1999) 14(8)
Mealey’s International Arbitration Report D-1 – D-2 ...................................2.42, 10.34, 10.35
Belmont Partners LLC v Mina Mar Group Inc 741 FSupp2d 743 (WDVa 2010) ...................12.37
Brandon v MedPartners, Inc 203 FRD 677 ................................................................................14.57
Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S De RL de CV v
Pemex-Exploración y Producción, No 10 Civ 206 (AKH), 2013 WL 4517225
(SDNY Aug 27, 2013) ...........................................................................................................2.42
Corporación Mexicana de Mantenimiento Integral, S De RL de CV v
Pemex-Exploración y Producción, No. 13–4022 (2nd Cir 2016) ......................................10.35
Global Gold Mining. See Global Gold Mining, LLC v Robinson et al., 533 F. Supp.
2d 442 (2008 SDNY) ...............................................................................................................6.7
International Paper Co v Schwabedissen Maschinen & Anlagen GmbH, 206 F 3d 411,
417 n 4 (4th Cir 2000) ...........................................................................................................2.39
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Das Gas Bumi Negara 364 F 3d
274 (5° Cir 2004) ................................................................................................................12.35

xxxiv
 TABLE OF CASES

Ledee v Ceramiche Ragno 684 F2d 184 (1st Cir 1982), 187 ......................................................2.38
Martin I Spier v Calzaturificio Tecnica SpA, 71 F Supp 2d 279 / 77 F Supp 2d 405 .............10.34
Prima Paint Corp v Flood & Conklin Mfg Co 388 US (1967) 395 ..............................................2.6
Rhone Mediterranee v Achille Lauro, 444 F Supp 481 (DVI 1982), 712 F2d 50
(3d Cir 1983) ................................................................................................................ 2.39, 2.45
Scherk v Alberto-Culver Co, 417 US 506, 519, 94 S Ct 2449, 2457, 41 L Ed 2d 270 (1974).......2.41
Termo Rio SAESP v Electranta SP 06–7058, 2007 WL 1515069 (DC Cir May 25, 2007) ........2.42
Termorio SA v Electranta SP, 487 F 3d 928................................................................... 10.34, 10.35
Thyssen Canada Ltd v Mariana Maritima SA [2000] 3 FC 398....................................................2.7

UNCITRAL
Saluka Investments BV v The Czech Republic, UNCITRAL, Partial Award dated 17 March 2006........ 9.23

Virgin Islands
IPOC International Growth Fund Ltd v LV Finance Group Ltd, Civil Appeal No 30 of
2006 (18 June 2007) ............................................................................................................12.30

xxxv
 TA B L E O F L E G IS L AT I ON
Abu Dhabi Law No. (4) of 2013 Concerning
Abu Dhabi Global Market..................... 11.26
ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 ....... 11.68
Article 56 ............................................. 11.9
ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments,
Enforcement and Judicial Appointments
Regulations 2015
Article 180.............................................. 11.69
Algerian Code of Civil Procedure
Article 458 bis 1(3) ...............................2.7
Arbitration Act 1889......................................4.3
Arbitration Act 1996.........2.19, 4.3, 4.18, 4.24,
10.22, 10.60
s 1(c) ....................................................4.10
s 5.........................................................5.28
s 24(2) ..................................................4.24
s 33.................................... 4.13, 4.14, 4.18
s 35..................................................5.1, 5.4
s 48.....................................................14.57
s 59.....................................................13.16
s 67..............................................2.34, 12.5
s 68.......................................................12.5
s 69.................................. 5.32, 10.22, 12.5
s 73.......................................................4.24
s 89....................................................... 5.11
s 90....................................................... 5.11
s 91....................................................... 5.11
s 103...................................................12.35
s 103(2)(b) .............................................2.8
s 108(3) ..............................................10.61
Bahrain Arbitration Law............................ 11.13
Article 3 ............................................... 11.8
Article 12 ........................................... 11.13
Article 16 ........................................... 11.20
Bahrain Civil Procedures Code
Article 233 ......................................... 11.13
Article 255 ......................................... 11.49
Bahrain Civil Procedures Law .................. 11.47
xxxvii
Bahrain Law of Evidence
Article 84 ........................................... 11.10
Brussels I Regulation within the European
Union......................................................12.14
Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992...........5.18
Civil Procedure Rules (1998)
Rule 3.1(2)(e)–(j) ............................5.2, 5.4
Rule 19.6.....................................5.26, 5,48
Code of Civil Procedures issued by decree-law
No. 90/1983
Articles 762–821................................ 11.49
Consumer Rights Act 2015
Schedule 4, paras 30–33 ..................... 5.11
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
s 1.........................................................5.19
s 8................................................5.12, 5.17
s 8(1) .......................5.12, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15,
5.16, 5.17, 5.19, 5.53
s 8(2) ................................ 5.15, 5.21, 5.22,
5.23, 5.24, 5.53
Decree No. (19) of 2016 forming the
Judicial Committee of the Dubai Court
and the DIFC Courts, dated 9 June
2016 ........................................... 11.35m 11.67
Article 2(1) ........................................ 11.35
Article 2(2) ........................................ 11.35
Article 4(1) ........................................ 11.35
Decree No. 57 of 2009 Establishing a tribunal
to decide the Disputes in relation to
Settling the Financial Position of Dubai
World and its subsidiaries, dated 14
December 2009 ...................................... 11.22
Article 9 ............................................. 11.22
Decree No. 61 of 2009 Setting up a Special
Judicial Committee on the disputes related
to Amlak Finance PJSC and Tamweel
PJSC, dated 27 December 2009 ........... 11.22
Article 3 ............................................. 11.22
 TABLE OF LEGISLATION
DIFC Arbitration Law
Articles 42–44...................................... 11.9
Article 170 ......................................... 11.69
Dubai Government Decree establishing a
special judicial committee to settle
disputes related to Zabeel Investments LLC,
dated 9 February 2011........................... 11.22
Dubai Law No. 10 of 2005 Amending
Certain Provisions of Government
Lawsuit Law no 3 of 1996
Article 3(1) ........................................ 11.42
Dubai Law No. 3 of 2002
Dubai Law No. 6 of 1997
Article 36 ........................................... 11.18
Dubai Law No. 9 of 2004 ......................... 11.26
Dubai Law No. 32 of 2008
Articles 8 and 9 ................................. 11.18
Egyptian Arbitration Law, Law No. 27/1994
Promulgating the Law Concerning
Arbitration in Civil and Commercial
Matters ................................................... 11.44
Egyptian Arbitration Law
Articles 2, 3 ......................................... 11.8
Article 9 ............................................... 11.8
Article 57 ............................................. 11.9
Egyptian Civil and Commercial Procedures
Code
Articles 296–301................................ 11.44
Emiri Decree No. 30/2009
Article 23 ............................................. 11.8
EU Mediation Directive 2008/52/EC............4.9
Federal Decree No. 35 of 2004 ................ 11,26
Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance
(Cap 609) ...............................................15.15
Housing Grants, Construction and
Regeneration Act 1996 ...............10.44, 13.17
International Commercial Arbitration Law
of 1994 ................................................... 11.47
Jordanian Arbitration Law, Law No. 31 of 2001
Article 10/A ....................................... 11.10
Article 10/B ....................................... 11.10
Article 22 ........................................... 11.20
Article 32(d) ...................................... 11.10
Article 37 ........................................... 11.13
Judicial Authority Law
Article 7 ..................................11.31, 11.67
Article 53 ........................................... 11.68
Kuwait Civil Procedures Code
Article 12 ........................................... 11.10
Article 173 .....................11.3, 11.10, 11.13
xxxviii
Articles 174–188 ................................ 11.3
Article 179 ......................................... 11.10
Article 181 ......................................... 11.13
Article 183 ........................................... 11.9
Article 184 ........................................... 11.8
Article 185 ........................................... 11.9
Article 199ff ...................................... 11.45
Article 203 ......................................... 11.49
Kuwait Law of Evidence
Article 44 ........................................... 11.10
Law of Enforcement of Foreign Judgments,
Law No. 8 of 1952 ................................ 11.47
Lebanese Civil Procedures Code
Article 762 ......................................... 11.18
Article 765 ......................................... 11.18
Article 790 ......................................... 11.10
Article 794 ........................................... 11.9
Article 798 ......................................... 11.21
Article 799 ......................................... 11.21
Article 800 ........................................... 11.8
Article 805 ........................................... 11.8
Article 814 ......................................... 11.61
Lebanese Code of Obligations and Contracts
Article 1037 ....................................... 11.18
Libyan Code of Civil and Commercial
Procedure
Article 762 ........................................... 11.8
Oman Arbitration Law, the Omani Law of
Arbitration in Civil and Commercial
Disputes – Royal Decree 47/97
Article 9 ............................................... 11.8
Article 23 ........................................... 11.20
Article 45 ........................................... 11.13
Article 55 ............................................. 11.9
Article 190 ......................................... 11.10
Oman Civil Procedures Code
Article 18(1) ...................................... 11.13
Article 383 ......................................... 11.49
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
s 328.....................................................4.49
Qatar Civil Procedures Code ...........11.3, 11.10
Article 190 ......................................... 11.13
Articles190–210 ................................... 11.3
Article 197 ......................................... 11.13
Article 202 ........................................... 11.9
Article 204 ........................................... 11.9
Article 284 ......................................... 11.10
Article 286 ......................................... 11.10
Article 381ff .............................11.3, 11.45
Article 383 ......................................... 11.49
 TABLE OF LEGISLATION
Qatar Commercial Code
Article 87 ............................................. 11.8
Qatar Financial Centre Regulation No. 8 of 2005 –
QFC Arbitration Regulations adopted
pursuant to Article 9 of Law No. 7 of
2005 on 22 November 2005 .............11.26, 11.39
Qatari Arbitration Law 2017 ....................... 11.8
Article 1 ............................................... 11.8
QFC Arbitration Regulations
Articles 41(3) and 43(1)(B)(ii).......... 11.70
Restatement (Third) of the Foreign
Relations Law of the United States
s 712 (g)...............................................9.22
Saudi Arbitration Law 2012 ...............11.8, 11.9
Article 2 ............................................. 11.17
Article 5 ............................................. 11.17
Article 8 ............................................... 11.8
Article 9(2) ........................................ 11.10
Article 16(2) ...................................... 11.13
Article 21 ........................................... 11.20
Article 27 ........................................... 11.10
Article 38 ........................................... 11.17
Article 40 ........................................... 11.13
Article 50 ................................................... 11.10
Article 50(2) ...................................... 11.17
Article 55 ........................................... 11.17
Saudi Arbitration Law 2015 ........................ 11.2
Article 11 ............................................. 11.8
Singapore International Arbitration Act 1994
(Cap 143A) ............................................15.15
s 19A ..................................................10.50
s 19B ........................... 10.50, 10.51, 10.53
Spanish Arbitration Act 2003
Article 9(6)
Swedish Arbitration Act 1999
Article 48 ...............................................2.7
xxxix
Swiss Federal Private International Law
Act of 18 December 1987
Article 178(2) ......................................2.45
Article 190(2) ......................................12.5
Syrian Arbitration Law
Article 32(2) ...................................... 11.10
UAE Arbitration Chapter
Article 203(2) .................................... 11.10
Article 203(4) .................................... 11.13
Article 208(3) .................................... 11.10
Article 208 ......................................... 11.10
Article 210(1) .................................... 11.13
Article 212(5) .................................... 11.10
Article 212(7) ...................................... 11.9
Article 213(3) ...................................... 11.9
Article 215(1) ...................................... 11.9
Article 216 ..............................11.13, 11.14
Article 217(2) ...................................... 11.9
Article 238 ......................................... 11.49
Articles 235–238................................ 11.45
UAE Civil Procedures Code
Article 31 ........................................... 11.31
UAE Civil Transactions Code
Article 3 ............................................. 11.14
Article 733 ......................................... 11.18
UAE Federal Law No. 11 of 1973
Regulating Judicial Relations
between Member Emirates in
the Federation ........................................ 11.30
Article 11 ........................................... 11.30
UAE Law No. 10 of 2005 Amending
Certain Provisions of Government
Lawsuit Law No. 3 of 1996
Article 3(1) ........................................ 11.79
US Federal Arbitration Act
ss 10 and 11(b) ....................................12.5
 TA B L E O F I N T E R NAT I ONAL
TR E AT I E S A N D C O NVE NT I ONS

Agreement on Legal and Judicial (the Washington Convention or

Cooperation between the UAE
and Somalia (1982) ............................... 11.49
Convention on the Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral
Awards, New York, June 1958
(New York Convention) ............. 1.2, 1.6, 4.6,
5.50, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4,
10.5, 10.14, 10.23, 10.29,
10.30, 10.59, 10.63, 10.65,
11.4, 11.49, 11.51, 11.53,
11.54, 11.81, 11.85, 12.2,
12.8, 12.15, 12.31, 12.32,
12.39, 14.118
Article I .......................................10.5, 10.6
Article II .....................................10.5, 10.7
Article II(1) ..........................................5.28
Article II(2) ..........................................5.28
Article III ........................................... 11.54
Article IV(1) ...................................... 11.54
Article IV(h) ......................................10.16
Article V...................................10.5, 11,55,
12.1, 12.2, 12.5,
12.8, 12.11, 12.31,
12,34, 12.35, 12.39
Article V(1) .........................................12.8
Article V(1)(a) .............2.8, 2.9, 2.24, 12.4
Article V(1)(b) ....................................12.4
Article V(1)(c) .....................................12,4
Article V(1)(e) ..........................10.29, 12.1
Article V(2)...................... 10.13, 12.4, 12.8
Article V(2)(b)............. 10.13, 10.16, 10.18,
11.60, 11.63, 12.11
Article V(2)(e) ...............................................12.35
Article VII...............................12.32, 12.34
Convention on the Settlement of
Investment Dispute between States
and Nationals of Other States
ICSID Convention) .................. 8.4, 8.6, 8.10,
8.14, 8.23
Article 25 ......................................8.5, 8.14
Article 52(1)(a)–(e)............................ 11.75
Article 52(3) ...................................... 11.75
Article 53(1) ...................................... 11.75
Article 54 ....................................8.5, 11.75
Article 55 ........................................... 11.75
Energy Charter Treaty 2015
Article 1(6) ..........................................8.12
European Convention on International
Commercial Arbitration 1961
Article VI(2) .............................................2.6
Geneva Convention on the Execution of
Foreign Arbitral Awards 1927 ...................4.6
GCC Convention for the Execution of
Judgments, Delegations and Judicial
Notifications (1996) ..........11.4, 11.49, 11.50,
11.51, 11.81, 11.85
Article 2 ............................................. 11.51
Article 2(e)......................................... 11.81
Article 12 ........................................... 11.50
Riyadh Convention on Judicial Cooperation
between States of the Arab League
(1983) ................................11.4, 11.49, 11.50,
11.51, 11.81, 11,85
Article 37 ................................11.50, 11.51
Treaty on Judicial Cooperation between
the UAE and Sudan (2005) ................... 11.49
UNCITRAL Model Law on
International Commercial
Arbitration (1985) ............................... 1.16, 4.6,
4.7, 4.8, 4.10, 4.24,
11.2, 11.9, 11.11, 11.17,
11.30, 12.5, 15.5, 15.18
Article 7, Option 2 ..............................5.28
Article 7(2), Option I, .........................5.28

xli
 TABLE OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

Article 12 .............................................4.24 Article 34(2)(a)(i) ..................................2.8

Article 13 .............................................4.24
Article 17 ..................................15.5, 15.18
Article 18 .............................................4.14
Article 31 ...........................................10.51
Articles 33..........................................10.51
Article 34(2) ........................................12.5
Article 34(2)(a)(i) ................................2.24
Articles 34(4) .....................................10.51
Article 36(1)(a)(i) ................................2.24
Article 36(1)(a)(i)–(iv).........................12.5
Article 36(1)(a)(v)................................12.5
Article 36(1)(b)(i)–(ii) .........................12.5
UNCITRAL Rules .......................................4.43
Articles 9–12........................................4.24

xlii
 TA B L E O F A R B I T R AT I ON RUL E S

AAA Rules ...........13.66, 13.74, 13.97, 13.100 Article 4(3) .................................6.31, 6.46
Clause 1.04.B...........................................13.100 Article 4(4) .................................6.19, 6.43
Clause 1.04.I ............................................13.105 Article 4(5) ..........................................6.23
ADR Rules Article 4(6) .................................6.71, 6.76
Article 33 .....................................................4.34 Article 5 ......................................4.20, 6.41
ARIAS Arbitration Rules ..................2.10, 3.13 Article 5(1) ....................... 6.26, 6.27, 6.28
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Article 5(1)–(4) ....................................6.25
Arbitration Rules ........... 13.28, 13.33, 13.48, Article 5(5) ..........................................6.29
13.72, 13.92, 13.97 Article 5(6) ..........................................6.29
Article 6(2) ................................................13.64 Article 6 ....................................6.41, 13.29
Article 12 ...................................................13.33 Article 6(3) ...................... 6.17, 6.19, 6.41,
Article 13 .................................................13.102 6.50, 6.52
Article 13(5) ............................................13.102 Article 6(4) ...............6.6, 6.13, 6.17, 6.19,
Chartered Institute of Arbitrators 6.41, 6.50, 6.52, 6.65, 6.67
Dispute Board Rules ............................15.25 Article 6(5) ....................... 6.19, 6.41, 6.50
Article 3 .....................................................15.28 Article 6(6) ................6.6, 6.19, 6.41, 6.50
Article 4 .....................................................15.28 Article 6(7) .................................6.19, 6.50
DIAC Rules ................................................4.23 Article 7 ............................... 5.7, 6.8, 6.10,
Article 37.8 ..........................................4.33 6.11, 6.12, 6.16, 6.17,
DRBF Rules...................... 13.66, 13.74, 13.100 6.29, 6.32, 6.41, 6.66
Article 6.A ...............................................13.100 Article 7(1) ...................... 6.14, 6.18, 6.21,
Article 6.B.2 ............................................13.100 6.30, 6.31, 6.39
Article 6.B.3 ............................................13.100 Article 7(2) ....................... 6.19, 6.22, 6.40
Appendix ..................................................13.100 Article 7(3) ..............6.19, 6.23, 6.26, 6.40
Appendix 2A............................................13.105 Article 7(4) ...................... 6.14, 6.25, 6.26,
Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors Rule 6.27, 6.28, 6.39
Clause 18(1)...................................................5.6 Article 8 ............................... 5.7, 6.8, 6.10,
GAFTA Rules ...............................................4.5 6.40, 6.41, 6.44
Rule 5.............................................................5.6 Article 8(1) .............3.35, 6.25, 6.36, 6.37,
ICC Arbitration Rules 2017 ...... 1.9, 2.27, 2.32, 6.39, 6.41, 6,46, 6.47, 6.48
3.2, 3.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.11, 4.20, Article 8(2) ..........................................6.46
4.23, 4.26, 4.37, 4.44, 4.46, Article 8(3) ....................... 6.42, 6.43, 6.46
6.8, 6.9, 6.76, 12.34, 13.32, Article 9 ............ 4.24, 5.7, 6.8, 6.10, 6.19,
13.48, 13.65, 13.74, 13.92, 6.41, 6.49, 6.50, 6.51, 6.53
13.97, 13.100, 13.137, 14.55, Article 10 ....................4.24, 5.7, 6.8, 6.10,
14.56, 15.10, 15.11, 15.30, 15.33 6.54, 6.55, 6.56, 6.59,
Article 3(2) ..........................................6.43 6.60, 6.62, 6.63, 6.64,
Article 4 ......................................4.20, 6.41 6.65, 6.67, 6.69, 6.71

xliii
 TABLE OF ARBITRATION RULES
Article 11 .............................................4.24
Article 12 .............................................4.24
Article 12(7) ........................................6.34
Article 12(8) ........................................6.34
Article 13 .............................................6.21
Article 14(1) ........................................4.24
Article 14(3) ........................................4.24
Article 16 ...........................................13.32
Article 17 ..............................13.32, 13.100
Article 18 ...........................................13.32
Article 20(1) ...................................13.105
Article 23 ...............................4.20, 14.117
Article 23(4) ........................................6.37
Article 23(1)(d) ....................................4.20
Article 26(3) ........................................4.15
Article 28 ......................................... 14.117
Article 29 ..................... 15.8, 15.10, 15.11,
15.28, 15.28
Article 33 .............................................4.34
Article 36(4) ........................................6.24
Appendix V...............................15.8, 15.10
ICDR Rules .......................................6.76, 15.7
ICE Dispute Board Procedure Rules .......13.65,
13.74, 13.104, 15.25
Article 4 .....................................................15.25
Article 5 .....................................................15.25
Article 6 .....................................................15.25
ICSID Arbitration Rules .......... 4.25, 8.6, 8.13,
8.14, 8.15, 14.58
Article 2 .........................................................8.6
London Court of International Arbitration
Rules 2014 ........................... 2.47, 4.11, 4.29,
4.33, 4.48, 5.4, 6.76
xliv
Preamble ..............................................5.28
Article 1.1(ii) .......................................5.28
Article 1.1 (v) ......................................5.28
Article 10.1 ..........................................4.24
Article 18.6 ..........................................4.29
Article 22(1)(viii) ..................................5.2
Article 22(1)(viii) .................................5.2
Article 22(1)(ix).....................................5.2
Article 26(7) ........................................4.33
Article 26(8) ........................................5.32
Annex ...................................................4.30
Rules of the Arbitration Institute of
the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC
Rules) ......................................................6.76
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
(SCC) Emergency Arbitration
Rules ............................... 6.76, 15.10, 15.11,
15.16, 15.23, 15.30
Appendix II ..........................................15.8
Article 37(4) ......................................15.10
Appendix II ........................................15.10
Article 10 .............................................15.8
Schedule I (3) ....................................15.10
SIAC Arbitration Rules ...................15.8, 15.30
Swiss Rules .....................................6.76, 15.19
UNCITRAL Rules ......................... 4.6, 4.7, 4.8,
4.10, 4.11, 4.43,
14.95, 15.12
Article 1(1) ..................................................5.28
Article 9 ...............................................4.24
Article 10 .............................................4.24
Article 11 .............................................4.24
Article 12 .............................................4.24
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Renato Nazzini

Objective
1.1 The resolution of disputes in the construction industry is a complex and ever cur-
rent topic. This book focuses on key themes in the resolution of construction disputes
from a transnational rather than purely domestic perspective.
1.2 In transnational projects, arbitration is, and is likely to continue to be, the method
of choice for resolving disputes. Arbitration offers neutrality, flexibility, the possibility
to select arbitrators experienced in the field, and widespread enforceability of the award
under the New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral
awards of 1958.
1.3 From a transnational perspective, neutrality is a particularly important consid-
eration. A foreign contractor would prefer, if at all possible, not to subject itself to the
jurisdiction of the courts of the host state. In a similar vein, contractors, subcontractors,
suppliers, and consultants from different jurisdictions would be concerned about litigating
disputes in the courts of the state of their opponent. Arbitration offers the possibility to
choose a tribunal that may appear more impartial because of its international composi-
tion. Importantly, it also offers the parties the choice of a seat in a neutral jurisdiction
with a well-established legal framework for the arbitration of disputes and whose courts
can be expected to support and supervise the arbitral process effectively and impartially.
1.4 Procedural flexibility is another key advantage of arbitration. While construction
disputes tend to be large, complex, and fact-intensive, they still vary significantly from
simple disputes concerning the construction of a contractual term or a contested pay-
ment claim to multi-billion dollar cases bundling together multiple claims for damages,
variations, delay and disruption, also potentially involving multiple parties. The arbitral
procedure can be tailored to suit the particular dispute at hand more easily than the civil
procedure rules in most jurisdictions. Furthermore, parties have much more control over
the procedure than they would in litigation.
1.5 The choice of arbitrators with particular expertise in the field is a further factor that
makes arbitration attractive in transnational projects. Arbitrators can be chosen for their
knowledge and experience in construction and in the specific type of dispute and sector
at hand. They can also bring to the tribunal an understanding of different legal traditions
and approaches, which may be crucial in resolving transnational disputes in a way that
is not only actually fair by the applicable legal standards, but is also clearly seen to be
fair by parties from different jurisdictions.

1
 RENATO NAZZINI

1.6 Finally, the enforceability of arbitral awards under the New York Convention of
1958 is an unsurpassable benefit of arbitration. The right to have an award enforced,
with minimum court supervision, in 157 countries by a predictable process cannot be
underestimated.1 This does not mean that the enforcement of arbitral awards is always and
invariably problem-free. The award debtor has clearly an incentive to delay the process
and the approach of courts around the world may vary in the degree to which it respects
the party’s choice to have their disputes adjudicated on the merits by an arbitral tribunal
rather than by national courts. And the potential involvement of two or more jurisdic-
tions in post-award proceedings, including the supervisory courts at the seat and courts
in one or more states where enforcement is sought, may give rise to forum shopping
and divergent outcomes, resulting in delays or, worse, in the frustration of the arbitral
process. But these instances are relatively rare and, importantly, the New York Convention
provides the tools to avoid this. A transnational approach is also about looking for, and
highlighting, solutions that work across jurisdictions to achieve consistency and predict-
ability of process and outcomes alike.
1.7 Construction disputes are characterised by the potential use of several dispute resolu-
tion mechanisms, not necessarily mutually exclusive. The most prominent one is, probably,
adjudication. From a transnational perspective, contractual adjudication, in particular under
clause 20 of the FIDIC standard forms of contract, has given rise to several problems,
including in relation to the enforcement of any decision made by a Dispute Adjudication
Board (DAB). But contractual adjudication is not the only alternative dispute resolution
method that is relevant to construction disputes. Mediation is of particular importance and
can be combined with contractual, or indeed statutory, adjudication and arbitration (or,
for that matter, litigation). However, arbitral tribunals can also grant provisional, interim
relief. A significant development is the introduction, and use in construction disputes, of
emergency arbitrator procedures in all the main institutional rules. Problems of coordina-
tion are arising and are bound to become more and more complex as well as practically
relevant. It is important, therefore, that this book devotes considerable attention to such
alternative methods of dispute resolution, without which any discussion of dispute resolu-
tion in the construction sector would be incomplete.

Structure
1.8 This book is divided into six parts. The first part covers issues concerning dispute
resolution clauses, focusing on three key themes. Chapter 2 deals with the law applicable
to the arbitration agreement. Chapter 3 examines multi-tier clauses. Chapter 4 discusses
the choice of institutional arbitration and problems and challenges facing arbitral institu-
tions in today’s global economy.
1.9 The second part deals with multi-party arbitration, a key feature of construction
arbitration. Chapter 5 provides an analysis of the principles governing joinder and con-
solidation of additional parties in arbitration, whereas chapter 6 examines in detail the
multi-party arbitration provisions in the ICC Rules.

1 See <www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/NYConvention_status.html> accessed on 9 June

2017.

2
 INTRODUCTION

1.10 The third part addresses the important topic of expert evidence by discussing the
role of expert witnesses in construction arbitration and focusing on delay and disruption
and quantum issues (chapter 7).
1.11 The fourth part deals with investment arbitration, which can give significant
additional remedies to a contractor in a transnational project. Chapter 8 examines the
circumstances in which construction contracts can be considered ‘investments’ for the
purposes of investment arbitration. Chapter 9 addresses the question of when state interfer-
ence with contractual rights may amount to ‘expropriation’, thus entitling the expropriated
party to a remedy against the host state.
1.12 The fifth part covers the most relevant issues concerning the enforcement of
arbitral awards. Chapter 10 focuses on the mechanics of the New York Convention and
the key issues that have emerged in relation to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards
under the Convention, including the enforcement of awards annulled at the seat, public
policy, and whether DAB decisions may be enforceable under the Convention. Chapter 11
provides an example of a regional approach as it deals with recognition and enforcement
of domestic and foreign arbitral awards in the Middle East. Chapter 12 examines the topic
of estoppel in enforcement proceedings as a means of achieving more convergence and
limiting forum shopping internationally once an award has been rendered and enforce-
ment is sought.
1.13 The sixth part covers issues concerning summary justice in the construction sec-
tor. Chapter 13 provides an analysis of the law and practice of Dispute Boards (DBs)
internationally. Chapter 14 examines the thorny issue of the enforceability of DAB deci-
sions. Chapter 15 discusses the interaction of emergency arbitrator procedures with other
pre-arbitral mechanisms, including, for example, mediation or DAB provisions.

Approach
1.14 The focus of the book is on transnational rather than domestic issues. By ‘trans-
national’, we mean any issue that involves, potentially, more than one legal system or
jurisdiction. This may be the case when the construction project itself comprises several
countries but also when the project is localised in one country only but the parties to the
various contracts relating to the project come from different jurisdictions.
1.15 When a project involves, potentially, multiple jurisdictions, a transnational
approach may, or some argue should, apply to the resolution of the disputes arising from
the project. Such a transnational approach may take various forms.
1.16 Firstly, the matter may be governed by an international instrument or an instrument
of international origin, such as the New York Convention or a domestic enactment of the
UNCITRAL Model Law on international commercial arbitration, so that an internationally
convergent construction and application of rules is called for.
1.17 Secondly, the matter may be governed by a contractual provision that was designed
to operate transnationally either in a standard form contract or in a bespoke contract.
While the contract will, in all likelihood, be governed by a national law that will apply to
determine its validity, construction, and remedies for breach, there may be a tendency to
construe and apply the contract in light of transnational principles to take into account its
transnational nature as enshrined by the will of the parties. There may also be a tendency
to consider that a standard term should be construed consistently regardless of the law

3
 RENATO NAZZINI

governing the contract, although this approach is by no means uncontroversial. The same
can be said of contractual provisions governing the procedure of the arbitration rather
than the main contract, such as provisions contained in institutional arbitration rules.
1.18 Thirdly, if the matter is governed purely by national law, national law may nev-
ertheless adapt to take into consideration the transnational nature of the dispute, also in
light of solutions adopted in other jurisdictions. This can be achieved through different
techniques. For example, a legal system may apply different rules to disputes involving
a transnational element than it does to purely domestic disputes. Or, more subtly, courts
may apply national rules differently than they would in a purely domestic setting.
1.19 The focus on transnational issues does not mean that domestic law is irrelevant.
Quite the contrary. Transnational dispute resolution requires, generally, the application
of one or more domestic law regimes. The arbitrators themselves will have to apply
one or more national laws (potentially different) governing, for example, the arbitration
agreement, the capacity of the parties, the contract, and the procedure. Furthermore, the
choice of arbitration by no means guarantees that national courts will not be involved
in the process. The case law of national courts plays, therefore, an important part in
supporting arbitration and supervising the procedure and the award in light of the three
pillars of jurisdiction, natural justice, and public policy. National courts will generally
apply one or more national law systems, identified by the application of national conflict
of laws rules, to the issues that they need to determine. This book does, therefore, discuss
domestic law, whether in the context of a comparative analysis of how different legal
systems solve a given problem, or as an example of how a given problem can be solved
internationally, or to demonstrate how national law ‘mutates’, so to speak, to take into
account the transnational context of the dispute.
1.20 Ultimately, a transnational approach does not mean doing away with national
laws, but understanding and applying national laws in a way that is consistent with par-
ties’ expectations and that duly takes into account the transnational nature of the dispute.
Convergence, or considered divergence, will arise and consolidate over time by a constant
interaction between party autonomy, manifesting itself particularly, but not exclusively,
in the use of standard form contracts and institutional arbitration rules, arbitral practice,
international instruments, and national legal frameworks and case law. This book aims at
enabling those studying and practising construction dispute resolution on an international
scale to navigate this complex web of law and practice with an understanding of the
problems and the best tools available to address them.