This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here



In this talk, taking place at the Royal College of Surgeons on the 16th December 2015, Thomas Raphael addresses the English Court's approach to anti-suit injunctions in the light of Petter v EMC

The event is for Combar members, if you wish to attend please register at admin [at] combar [dot] com

We all think we know what “Fraud” means, but can we always identify the fraudster? And can we confidently judge when we must allege fraud, when we might allege fraud, and when we positively must not allege fraud?

Topics covered:

Understanding “Blind-eye” fraud – the Friday afternoon syndrome?
Attribution: when does the fraud exception apply?
Limitation: when does alleging fraud help and when not?
The reluctant arbitrator: when might court proceedings be needed?
Litigation against multiple parties and asserting multiple potential causes of action: can a traffic accident be avoided?

This talk looks at various aspects of commercial fraud claims, including the use of unlawfully obtained evidence, when it can be used, and common pitfalls for practitioners to avoid.

This talk covers some of the tactical considerations to bear in mind when advising a client before proceedings have been commenced, with a focus on practical suggestions, possible pitfalls to be avoided and some of the recent case law.

The skepticism against international arbitration in Asia and over interference by national courts, in particular in countries like India, is now giving way to recognising the primacy of the agreement to arbitrate. The presentation focusses on the evolution of the arbitral jurisprudence in Asia, with a particular focus on India and Singapore, and suggest practical ways of effectively resolving disputes.

This talk looked at some recent High Court decisions relating to challenges to awards (s67/68/69), orders for security in relation to challenges to awards, the removal of arbitrators, and costs.

This talk covers the following topics:

Interim Relief in support of arbitrations under s.44 of the 1996 Act

The kinds of relief available under s.44:

  • Is relief available under s.37 Senior Courts Act 1981 where it would not be available under s.44?
  • Order for the purpose of preserving assets – what is an asset?

Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses

Discussion of the issues arising out of the use of such clauses in light of the decision in Emirates Trading Agency LLC v. Prime Mineral Exports [2014] EWHC 2104 (Comm) including:

  • The enforceability of obligations to mediate or negotiate
  • When such obligations are effective conditions precedent to arbitration

The Court’s jurisdiction over third parties to an arbitration agreement

  • The traditional position
  • The modern position
  • Circumstances where that power might be invoked, such as by a sub-charterer seeking inspection of a vessel under s.44

The Commercial Court’s approach to applications for permission to appeal on a point of law (s.69) and to challenge on the grounds of serious irregularity (s.68)

  • Is the Court more willing than previously to give permission to appeal?
  • The importance of the formulation of the question of law
  • The procedure for expedited determination of s.68 applications

On 10 January 2015, the current Brussels I Regulation on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments will be replaced by EU Regulation 1215/2012,  The recast Regulation will introduce significant changes.  These include:

  • changes to the lis pendens provisions aimed at addressing the problem of the so called "Italian torpedo";
  • changes to the rules relating to jurisdiction agreements;
  • new rules concerning third state matters and defendants;
  • reinforcement of the arbitration exclusion; and
  • the abolition of exequatur (the need to obtain a court order before enforcing a foreign judgment) and certain changes regarding the recognition and enforcement of judgments.

The Brussels I Regulation has proved a significant battleground for litigants since its introduction, and the new Regulation is likely to be no different. As well as describing the key changes to the Brussels I regime, this lecture (presented by Sara Masters QC and Edward Ho) will highlight some of the new pitfalls and uncertainties so that practitioners are alive to and ready for them before the Regulation is introduced.

Reaching Beyond the Obvious – Recent Developments in Piercing the Corporate Veil, Non-Cause of Action Defendants and Hard Cases: Petrodel v Prest, Mahakam and Ablyazov

Recent developments in England have shown the Court’s enthusiasm to throw the net wide in the fight against fraud (the recent Ablyazov litigation) but otherwise to be more restrictive in respect to piercing the corporate veil (Petrodel –v- Prest) and Non-Cause of Action Defendants (Mahakam).

Duncan Matthews QC and Sara Masters QC will consider these recent developments and applications of some of them in Singapore (notably in Manuchar Steel Hong Kong Limited v Star Pacific Line Pte Ltd). The talk, in association with SIArb and chaired by Mr Leslie Chew SC (KhattarWong LLP) will take place at 12pm on Tuesday, 18 November 2014.