The interphase between the english national arbitation laws

ENGLISH NATIONAL ARBITATION LAWS, THE NEW YORK CONVENTION &

THE RULES OF THE LONDON COURT OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITATIOIN:

INTERPHASE & APPLICATION

Valentine Ataka *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

0.0 INTRODUCTION ..

……………………………………………………………………………………....1

1.0 PRE-ARBITRATION PROCEDURES…………………………………….……………………….1

1.1 Establishment of ‘a dispute under the Contract’..…………………………....

…………..1

1.2 Identifying the Dispute Resolution Forum ……………………..………….……………..

…….2

1.3Negotiation as required under the Contract …………………………………..

………………..2

1.4Initiation of Arbitration

………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

2.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES DURING ARBITRATION ……………………....

………...5

2.1 Appointment of Arbitrators

…………………………………………………………………………..5

2.2 Conduct of the Hearing ….…………………………………………………….……..

………..…….6

2.3 Confidentiality.. ….……..………………………………………....…………………………..

……...7

2.4Application for Interim and Conservatory Orders

…………………………………………. 7

2.5Application for Supplementary Orders of Court

…………………………………………...8

*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance

(ACRAG) and an LLM Candidate (2013) in Oil and Gas Law at the Robert Gordon University

0

3.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES POST-ARBITRATION ……………………………………..

….9

3.1Challenging the Award

………………………………………………………………………………......9

3.2 Enforcement

………………………………………………………………………………………………….10

4.0 CONLUSION

…………………………………………………………………………………………….11

BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………………………..

……………..14

0.0 INTRODUCTION

This article discusses the procedural issues that disputants need to take into

account where they have subjected their disputes to the jurisdiction of the London

Court of Arbitration and have elected London as the seat of their arbitration. The

issues to be considered are:

Pre-arbitration procedural issues – what are the procedural requirements

before commencement of arbitration in view of the terms and conditions of the

Contract, the LCIA Rules (the Rules)and the Arbitration Act, 1996 (the Act); and

what are the relevant issues that the disputants need to address themselves to

even as they embark on these preliminary procedures?

Procedural issues during the arbitration - What would be the procedural

imperatives as the arbitration progresses considering the terms of the contract, the

salient features of the dispute, the Rules and the Act?



1

Procedural Issues post arbitration- what are the procedural issues that ABC has

to watch out for in anticipation of the conclusion of the Arbitration?

1.0 PRE-ARBITRATION PROCEDURAL ISSUES

1.1 Establishment of a ‘dispute under the Contract’

The disputants cannot proceed to adjudication unless there is indeed a ‘dispute’

between them arising from the contract1. A problem presents itself where the

contract does not define what amounts to ‘a dispute under the contract.’ However,

according to the High Court of England in case of Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v

The Secretary of State for Transport2which concerned the challenge of the

jurisdiction of an arbitrator, a dispute comes to be when there was notification and

rejection of the claim.

1.2 Identifying the Dispute Resolution forum

The Contract will often be explicit on the form of dispute resolution mechanism that

the parties are to pursue. The Contract may sometimes provide for a multi-tier

procedure in dispute resolution; for example.

(i) Informal Negotiations before

(ii) An ADR process of choice

(iii) Court as default recourse in the event that the above two fail

1.3 Negotiation where required under the Contract

In some Contracts there may be an escalating negotiation procedure before

recourse can be sought in ADR or Courts; for instance

1 Always Associates, ‘Judicial Guidance on the Meaning of Dispute’, January 2005) http://www.alway-associates.co.uk/legal-update/article.asp?id=71 accessed 4th March 2013

2 [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC)



2

http://www.alway-associates.co.uk/legal-update/article.asp?id=71

(a) Informal Negotiations by parties’ representatives; failing which

(b) Formal Negotiation by nominees of the respective parties3; failing which

(c) Executive Negotiation by Managing Directors of the companies.

Under English law, such an agreement to negotiate is not enforceable4. This was the

position held by the Court in Wah (Aka Alan Tang) & Another v Grant

Thornton International Ltd & Others5 where the contract had required

executive negotiation before formal procedures. The High Court (Hildyard J) held

that such contractual negotiation clauses are

‘too equivocal ….. and too nebulous in terms of the content of the parties' respective obligations to be given legal effect as an enforceable condition precedent to arbitration’6

Disputants should however note that negotiation processes are much simpler,

cheaper and more time effective compared to formal ADR processes such as

arbitration7. For instance, institutional arbitration greatly limits party autonomy in

3 The nominees of either party are may be predetermined e.g. by an Appendix to the Contract or agreed to before negotiations start

4 Contrast with the position in the USA and Singapore where the Courts have upheld parties’ pre-arbitration procedural requirements. See the cases of Argentina vs BG Group D.C. Court of Appeals, No. 1:08-cv-00485 and International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 226 in the USA and Singapore respectively

5 [2012] EWHC 3198 (Ch)

6 Ibid, Paragraph 72

7 Brown, Henry J. & Marriott, Arthur L., “Choice and timing of Process Use" in, Brown, Henry J. & Marriott, Arthur L., (eds) ADR Principles and Practice, (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 1999)

See also Margaret L Moses, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, (Cambridge, 2008) pg4 where she notes that the myth that arbitration is cheap and time saving is fading due to tendency by parties who have ‘increasingly incorporated many litigation tactics into arbitration’.



3

resolution of disputes8. In such arbitration the parties are bound by the Rules of the

institution with minimal exceptions.9

1.4 Initiation of Arbitration

1.4.1 Notices of arbitration under the Act

If the contractual negotiations fail, the next step is for the disputants to commence

arbitration proceedings. To do so, they have to first comply with Section 14(3) of the

Act. The Section provides that

Where the arbitrator is named or designated in the arbitration agreement,

arbitral proceedings are commenced in respect of a matter when one party

serves on the other party or parties a notice in writing requiring him or them

to submit that matter to the person so named or designated.

Where the contract does not stipulate the procedure for triggering the arbitration

process, either party will have to issue a S.14(3) notice. This Step is important in

among other things forming basis for raising or defending objections on limitation of

time prescribed by Clause 29.2 of the Contract10. The notice, as was pointed out in

Bulk & Metal Transport v Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax Pool LLC,11needs to be

clear that the arbitration agreement is being invoked and that the respondent is

required to take steps accordingly.

8 Section 1(b) of the Arbitration Act recognizes this freedom of parties ‘to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest’

9 See the Preamble to the LCIA Rules which provides that ‘Where any agreement, submission or reference provides in writing and in whatsoever manner for arbitration under the rules of the LCIA or by the Court of the LCIA (“the LCIA Court”), the parties shall be taken to have agreed in writing that the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the following rules (“the Rules”)

10 As read with Appendix 1 to Section 1 -Form of Agreement which contains the actual limitation period

11 [2009] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 377



4

In the event that time has lapsed, the initiating party may proceed under Section 12

of the Act to obtain an order of Court extending time within which to lodge the

claim. This is one of the Mandatory provisions of the Act12 meaning irrespective of

any other agreement, the right under this provision can still be exercised13.

1.4.2 Request for arbitration under the LCIA Rules

At the lapse of the Section 14(3) notice, the next step is to comply with Article 1(1)

of the LCIA Rules which requires

Any party wishing to commence arbitration under these Rules (“the

Claimant”) [to] send to the Registrar of the LCIA Court (“the Registrar”) a

written request for arbitration (“the Request”)

The Request is to be accompanied by the Statement of Claim describing the nature

and circumstances of the dispute, and specifying the claims. The other documents

to accompany the Request include a copy of the Arbitration Agreement and

contract, proof of service.

2.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES DURING THE ARBITRATION

The conduct of institutional arbitration procedures is predominantly governed by

the rules of the chosen institution14 which in this case is the LCIA and the law of the

seat of the arbitration. Going by the decision in C vs. D,15 English Law will be the

lex arbitri since the parties have elected London as the seat of the arbitration16.

12 Schedule 1 of the Act

13 Guy Pendell and David Bridge, “Arbitration in England & Wales” in Torsten Lörcher, Guy Pendell and Jeremy Wilson, (eds) CMS Guide to Arbitration (CMS Legal Service, 2012)

14 Michael Pryles, ‘Limits to Party Autonomy in Arbitral Procedure’, (ICCA, 2008) http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12223895489410/limits_to_party_autonomy_in_international_commercial_arbitration.pdf accessed 28th February 2013 accessed 2nd March 2013

15 [2007] EWHC 1541

16 Annex to the Contract



5

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1282.html

http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12223895489410/limits_to_party_autonomy_in_international_commercial_arbitration.pdf%20accessed%2028th%20February%202013


2.1 Appointment of Arbitrators

The mandate to appoint the Tribunal under the Rules lies with the LCIA with limited

input by the parties. Under Article 5.4 of the LCIA Rules, the Tribunal to conduct the

arbitration is to be constituted once the Respondent files their reply to the Claim or

not later than 30 days after the Claim had been served.

Party contribution is limited. For instance a reading of Article 7.1 of the Rules also

indicates that party autonomy may extend to nomination of an arbitrator. However,

the actual appointment is at the discretion of the Court. Article 5.4 allows the

parties to agree on whether they want more than one arbitrator to form the

Tribunal. Under Article 5.5, the appointment of arbitrators is to be done with ‘due

regard for any particular method or criteria of selection agreed in writing by the

parties’. Further, in exceptional urgency, a party may under Article 9 apply to the

Court for the expedited formation of the Tribunal.

Where the parties have agreed to participate in the appointment of the arbitrators it

will be important for each party to cooperate and comply with the timelines of

agreements otherwise they will be treated as having passed up the opportunity.

This was the case in Minermet SA Milan v Luckyfield Shipping Corpn SA17

where one of the parties was in default.

2.2 Conduct of the hearing

Under Article 19.2 of the LCIA Rules, the Tribunal has the discretion to ‘fix the date,

time and physical place of any meetings and hearings in the arbitration’. Article 14

however permits (and encourages) the parties to ‘agree on the conduct of their

arbitral proceedings’. Such agreement is however subject to the Tribunal’s duties:-

(i) to act fairly and impartially as between all parties, giving each a

reasonable opportunity of putting its case and dealing with that of its

opponent18; and

17 [2004] EWHC 729 (Comm)18 The Courts in England as was the case in Stretford v The Football Association Ltd & Another[2004] EWHC 729 (Comm) consider arbitration procedures to be subject to *The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance


6

(ii) to adopt procedures suitable to the circumstances of the arbitration,

avoiding unnecessary delay or expense, so as to provide a fair and

efficient means for the final resolution of the parties’ dispute

Indeed it is a mandatory duty of the parties pursuant to Section 40 of the Act as

interpreted by the High Court (Aikens J) in Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA19

to act in a manner that promotes expeditious and proper conduct of the arbitration

proceedings. In any event this is another opportunity for the parties to exercise

their autonomy, albeit limited to secure a speedy hearing and determination of the

dispute.

2.3 Laying down the rules on and Observation of Confidentiality

The general rule is that the proceedings at the LCIA are to be conducted in private

and matters therein treated with confidentiality20. In light of Article 30,

confidentiality covers the awards, materials used in the proceedings and

deliberations of the Tribunal. The only exception is where the parties have agreed

otherwise21

The Court of Appeal in England has had occasion in the case of Emmot vs.

Michael Wilson & Partners22 to emphasize that

constitutional requirements of fairness

19 [2007] EWHC 11 (Comm)

20 Articles 19.4 & 30

21 Ibid

22 [2008] EWCA Civ 184



7

‘the parties [are] under an obligation of confidence to use documents

disclosed or generated in an arbitration only for the purposes of the

arbitration even if the documents did not contain anything which was in itself

confidential. The obligation [arises], not as a matter of business efficacy, but

[is] implied as a matter of law. Such documents could not be disclosed to a

third party without the consent of the other party or pursuant to an order of

the court’

The parties will therefore be bound to uphold confidentiality throughout the

proceedings or otherwise agree in writing on the exceptions.

2.4 Application for Interim & Conservatory orders

As the arbitration progresses, there may be need to preserve the subject matter23.

For instance on the basis of apprehension as to the financial liquidity of the

Respondent , it may be necessary to ensure that in the event that the Claimant

gets an award in its favour, it is able to realize it.

By way of an application for a conservatory order as permitted by Article 25 of the

Rules, the Claimant may approach the Tribunal by way of an application for a

conservatory order requiring the Respondent to tender security for the amount in

dispute and for costs. Under Section 38 of the Act, this power is viewed as a

preserve of the Tribunal.24

2.5 Applications for supplementary orders of Court

23 Raymond Werbicki, “Arbitral Interim Orders: Fact or Fiction” in AAA Handbook on International Arbitration & ADR (Jurisnet, 2010)

24 Sandip Adhipathi, ‘Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration: Past, Present and Future’ (University of Georgia, 2003) http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stu_llm accessed on 13th February 2013*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance


8

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stu_llm

Court’s will not intervene in arbitration proceedings except to offer necessary

supportive orders.25 Under Section 44 of the Act the High Court may issue

supplementary orders for:-

(a) the taking of the evidence of witnesses;

(b) the preservation of evidence;

(c) permitting collection of evidence from the subject property

The exercise of this power by court is however restricted. For instance in Assimina

Maritime Ltd v Pakistan Shipping Corporation 26the Court (Colman J) rejected

the invoking of Section 44 to obtain ordinary disclosure of documents from a non-

party to the arbitration.27

3.0 PROCEDURAL ISSUES POST ARBITRATION

The arbitration process is substantively concluded when the Tribunal makes its

decision (the award)28. Generally, the award is deemed final and cannot be

challenged by the parties.29

3.1 Challenging the award

25 Sandip Adhipathi, (above n19) pg 18

26 [2005] All ER (D) 202 (Jan)

27 However See Gordon Blanke, “Supporting Role: Arbitration and the Courts” where in discussing Section 44 he argues that, ‘non-parties can nonetheless be forced to disclose documents in arbitral proceedings provided that the individual application for disclosure is sufficiently specific and the documents to be disclosed are crucial to the questions which have been submitted for determination in the arbitration proceedings’ http://www.sjberwin.com/Contents/Publications/pdf/100/240707012642.pdf accessed on 2nd March 2013

28 Article 26 of the Rules

29 Margaret Tofalides & Clair Athurs “Mission impossible? Challenging Arbitration Awards In England” (Arbitration Newsletter, September 2012) http://www.manches.com/Content/Resources/files/Margaret%20Tofalides%20Article%20IBA%20Newsletter%20September%202012.pdf accessed on 2nd March 2013



9

http://www.manches.com/Content/Resources/files/Margaret%20Tofalides%20Article%20IBA%20Newsletter%20September%202012.pdf

http://www.manches.com/Content/Resources/files/Margaret%20Tofalides%20Article%20IBA%20Newsletter%20September%202012.pdf

http://www.sjberwin.com/Contents/Publications/pdf/100/240707012642.pdf

Section 58 of the Act renders the decision of the any Arbitration Tribunal conclusive

and binding on the parties. It provides that

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an award made by the tribunal pursuant to an arbitration agreement is final and binding both on the parties and on any persons claiming through or under them

However, subsection (2) permits appeals or review but only where it is provided for

elsewhere in the Act.

Arising from the exception Section 67 of the Act permits the challenging the award

for want of jurisdiction. This provision is mandatory30 and hence it overrides the

provision of the LCIA Rules. Appeal on question of law to the High Court is

permitted by Section 6931. Such an appeal must be lodged within 28 days of the

award32. In fact the High Court (Blair J) in Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v Ene

Aegiali I33 has even held that the parties cannot agree (party autonomy

notwithstanding) to appeal the award on a question of law.

The Rules do not allow an appeal. Under Article 26.9 of the Rules, the decision of

the Tribunal (award) is final and binding. Article 29.2 goes ahead to provide that

To the extent permitted by the law of the seat of the arbitration, the parties shall be taken to have waived any right of appeal or review in respect of any such decisions of the LCIA Court to any state court or other judicial authority.

Being that Section 69 of the Act is not a mandatory provision, the effect of Article

29.2 is to oust the right of appeal even on a point of law34. However, the rules

permit Correction of any computation, clerical or typographical errors under Clause

30 Schedule 1 of the Act

31 As would be read with Article 29.2 of the Rules

32 Section 70(3) of the Act

33 [2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm)

34 Guy Pendell and David Bridge, (above n16)



10

70.1 of the Rules. An application for such correction must be done within 30 days of

receipt of the award

3.2 Enforcement

Under the LCIA Rules the parties are under a duty to ensure that the award is

enforceable.35 A party wishing to enforce the award therefore has two options;

- enforcement pursuant to the Arbitration Act or

- Pursuant to the New York Convention 36

By way of illustration if the Respondent has assets in Kazakhstan the enforcement is

better pursued through the Convention. Under Article III of the Convention, the

contracting states are obliged

‘to recognise arbitral awards and to enforce them in accordance with

the Rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon..’

Kazakhstan is a party to the Convention having acceded to it in 1995 hence is

bound by Article III.37 Pursuant to Kazakhstani Arbitration Courts Law and the

International Commercial Arbitration Law a party may now approach the court of

those countries for the purposes of enforcement of international awards38.

35 Article 32.2

36 UN, Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf accessed 4th March 2013

37 New York Arbitration Convention, “Convention Countries”, 2009 http://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states/list-of-contracting-states

38 Aigoul Kenjebayeva and Yuliya Mitrofanskaya, “Kazakhstan” in James Charter (ed), International Arbitration Review (Law Business Research Ltd, 2011)



11

http://www.newyorkconvention.org/contracting-states/list-of-contracting-states

http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/NY-conv/XXII_1_e.pdf

4.0 CONCLUSION

4.1 The principles

It is important for disputants to note that on the basis of the principle of sanctity of

contracts, any intended legal action to resolve their disputes must abide the

Contract between the two and the supporting laws and Rules.39 Where the

Agreement envisages the application of English law to the arbitration procedure, the

disputants should also be aware of the key procedural matters highlighted which

are rendered mandatory by virtue of Section 4 of the Act as read with Schedule 1.

Most important among these is the general duties of a party to arbitration

proceedings. Such duties including the duty to ensure expediting the process would

not only amount to compliance with the law, but would also serve the commercial

interest of business oriented entity40.

4.2 The procedures

The commercial interest of the disputants is also likely to be well served if they

abide all the procedures provided by their Contract. Consensual negotiation albeit

not enforceable under English law, even where not expressly provided for under the

contract offers a cheap, simple and fast option as compared to the default

processes of arbitration and litigation41. The fact that some Contracts present

litigation as the default Dispute resolution mechanism should be a further incentive

to make adequate commitment to the ADR processes provided for under the

39 Michael Pryles, (above n ) pg 17

40 Anthony Connerty, “Dispute Resolution In The Oil And Gas Industry - Recent Trends” (CEPMLP Vol 8) http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol8/article8-8.html accessed 12th February 2013

41 Mohammad Alramahi, “Dispute Resolution in Oil & Gas Contracts” [2011] 3 I.E.L.R. 78 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159702 accessed on 5th March 2013



12

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2159702

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol8/article8-8.html

Contract. Litigation portends a costly, time intensive and non-confidential forum for

dispute resolution.42

4.3 The Steps

With the foregoing considered the steps that disputants looking to present a dispute

at the London Court of International Arbitration need to take may be summarized

as follows:-

(i) Ascertain whether the claim is a ‘dispute’ under the Contract

(ii)Undertake the Contractual Negotiations

(iii)Issue Notice of Arbitration

(iv) Lodge Request for Arbitration

(v)Participate in the appointment of the Arbitration Tribunal

(vi) Seek Interim Orders e.g. for deposit of security for costs and

Inspection if necessary

(vii) Undertake discovery

(viii) Participate in setting the procedural rules of engagement

including regulation of confidentiality if need be and setting of

timelines

(ix) Attend Hearings through legal representatives

(x)Seek Court help in preservation of evidence and attendance of

witnesses if necessary

42 Ibid*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance


13

(xi)Challenge the award by review or for want of jurisdiction if

necessary

(xii) Enforce award on Kazakhstan under the New York Convention if

necessary

(xiii) Pursue litigation should Arbitration fail

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes

Arbitration Act, 1996 (England & Wales)

Arbitration Courts Law (Khazakhstan)

International Commercial Arbitration Law, 2004 (Khazakhstan)

Civil Procedure Rules, 1998 (UK)

Case Law

Argentina vs BG Group D.C. Court of Appeals, No. 1:08-cv-00485

Assimina Maritime Ltd v Pakistan Shipping Corporation [2005] All ER (D) 202 (Jan)

Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v The Secretary of State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 (TCC)



14

C vs. D[2007] EWHC 1541

Bulk & Metal Transport v Voc Bulk Ultra Handymax Pool LLC, [2009] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 377

Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v Ene Aegiali I[2010] EWHC 2826 (Comm)

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA[2007] EWHC 11 (Comm)

Emmot vs. Michael Wilson & Partners [2008] EWCA Civ 184

International Research Corp PLC v Lufthansa Systems Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2012] SGHC 226

Minermet SA Milan v Luckyfield Shipping Corpn SA [2004] EWHC 729 (Comm)

Stretford v The Football Association Ltd & Another[2004] EWHC 729 (Comm)

Wah (Aka Alan Tang) & Another v Grant Thornton International Ltd & Others [2012] EWHC

3198 (Ch)

Treaties

UN, Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958)


Books

AAA, Handbook on International Arbitration & ADR (Jurisnet, 2010)

Brown, Henry J. & Marriott, Arthur L., (eds) ADR Principles and Practice, (Sweet & Maxwell

Ltd, 1999)

James Charter (ed), International Arbitration Review (Law Business Research Ltd, 2011)

Margaret L Moses, The Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration,

(Cambridge, 2008)



15


http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/1282.html

Torsten Lörcher, Guy Pendell and Jeremy Wilson, (eds) CMS Guide to Arbitration (CMS Legal

Service, 2012)

Articles

Aigoul Kenjebayeva and Yuliya Mitrofanskaya, “Kazakhstan” in James Charter (ed),

International Arbitration Review (Law Business Research Ltd, 2011)

Always Associates, ‘Judicial Guidance on the Meaning of Dispute’, January 2005)


Anthony Connerty, “Dispute Resolution In The Oil And Gas Industry - Recent Trends”

(CEPMLP Vol 8) http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol8/article8-8.html

Brown, Henry J. & Marriott, Arthur L., “Choice and timing of Process Use" in, Brown, Henry J.

& Marriott, Arthur L., (eds) ADR Principles and Practice, (Sweet & Maxwell Ltd, 1999)

Gordon Blanke, “Supporting Role: Arbitration and the Courts”


Guy Pendell and David Bridge, “Arbitration in England & Wales” in Torsten Lörcher, Guy

Pendell and Jeremy Wilson, (eds) CMS Guide to Arbitration (CMS Legal Service, 2012)

Margaret Tofalides & Clair Athurs “Mission impossible? Challenging Arbitration Awards In

England” (Arbitration Newsletter, September 2012)

Michael Pryles, ‘Limits to Party Autonomy in Arbitral Procedure’, (ICCA, 2008)

http://www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12223895489410/limits_to_party_autonomy_in_inter

national_commercial_arbitration.pdf accessed 28th February 2013

Mohammad Alramahi, “Dispute Resolution in Oil & Gas Contracts” [2011] 3 I.E.L.R. 78


Raymond Werbicki, “Arbitral Interim Orders: Fact or Fiction” in AAA, Handbook on

International Arbitration & ADR (Jurisnet, 2010)

Sandip Adhipathi, ‘Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration: Past, Present

and Future’ (University of Georgia, 2003)

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stu_llm*The Author is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, the Executive Director of the African Centre for Rights & Governance


16

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=stu_llm





http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol8/article8-8.html


Others

New York Arbitration Convention, “Convention Countries”, 2009




17
