1.

[2006] 1 All ER 367

Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd (“the Ythan”)
Before: MR JUSTICE AIKENS

Para 57: It is clear that the intention behind section 73 is to ensure that a party
objecting to jurisdiction, who has decided to take part in the arbitral proceedings,
should bring forward his objections in those proceedings before the arbitrators.
He should not hold them in reserve for a challenge to jurisdiction in the court. I
agree with Colman J that this intention reflects a principle of "openness and fair
dealing" between parties who may, or may not, be bound by an arbitration clause.
I also agree with Colman J, therefore, that to fulfil this intention and to accord
with that principle, the words "any objection" and "that objection" in section 73
must mean "any ground of objection" and "that ground of objection".

2. The Place or ‘Seat’ of Arbitration (Possibility, and/or Sometimes

Necessity of its Transfer?) – Some Remarks on the Award in ICC
Arbitration n° 10’623

Page 115: From a contractual point of view, a change of the place of arbitration
agreed by the parties leads inevitably to a clash between two fundamental
principles of contract law : pacta sunt servanda and rebus sic stantibus. To the
extent that the latter is widely considered as being the security valve and
exception to the former, the question will boil down to whether the changed
circumstances prevailing in a case justify the transfer of the agreed place of
arbitration.

3. Halliburton Company (Appellant) v Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd (formerly

known as Ace Bermuda Insurance Ltd) (Respondent)
[2020] UKSC 48
JUSTICES: Lord Reed, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Arden

Para 126: Arbitration involves the conferral of jurisdiction by contract, through

the consensus of the parties to the reference. As it is a contract-based jurisdiction,
the degree of the independence of the arbitrators from the parties and the extent
of their prior knowledge of the circumstances of an event giving rise to the
arbitration or the market in which the arbitrating parties operate may, subject to
the requirements of the 1996 Act, be determined by the agreement of the parties,
 express or implied. The 1996 Act contains no provision which directly addresses
the arbitrator’s independence and prior knowledge, but it imposes the centrally
important obligations of fairness and impartiality. Therefore, an arbitrator would
be in breach of the requirements of the 1996 Act if his or her lack of
independence compromised the duties of fairness and impartiality.

4. ROGER SHASHOUA RODEMADAN HOLDINGS LIMITED

STANCROFT TRUST LIMITED - and - MUKESH SHAMA
[2009] EWHC 957 (Comm)

Para 25: The concept of the seat of and arbitration was known to English
law prior to the 1996 Arbitration Act but section 3 of that Act set out a
statutory definition as follows:-

"3 The Seat of the Arbitration

In this part "the seat of the arbitration" means the juridical seat of the arbitration
designated –

(a) by the parties to the arbitration agreement, or

(b) by any arbitral or other institution or person vested by the parties with

powers in that regard, or

(c) by the arbitral tribunal if so authorised by the parties,

Or determined in the absence of any such designation, having regard to the

parties' agreement and all the relevant circumstances."

5. Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS (Respondent) v OOO Insurance Company

Chubb (Appellant)
[2020] UKSC 38

Para 46: It has not generally been considered to make any difference in this
regard that the arbitration clause provides for arbitration to take place in a
different country from the country whose law has been chosen to govern
the contract. Examples of decisions in which a choice of law clause in the
contract has been treated as applying to the arbitration agreement despite
the seat of arbitration being in a different jurisdiction include: Cia Maritima
Zorroza SA v Sesostris SAE (The Marques De Bolarque) [1984] 1 Lloyd's Rep
652, 653; Union of India v McDonnell Douglas Corpn [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 48,
49-50; Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd v Oil and Natural Gas Commission [1994]
1 Lloyd's Rep 45, 57; Deutz AG v General Electric Co (Thomas J, 14 April
2000) at p 17; Peterson Farms Inc v C&M Farming Ltd [2004] EWHC 121
(Comm); [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 603, paras 43-46; Leibinger v Stryker Trauma
GmbH [2005] EWHC 690 (Comm), para 38; and Svenska Petroleum
Exploration AB v Government of the Republic of Lithuania [2005] EWHC 2437
(Comm); [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 731, paras 76-77.