The Effect of Foreign Jurisdiction Clauses on the Summary Enforcement of UK Adjudication Awards in Construction Contracts – 39 Essex Chambers

‘In the very interesting case of Motacus Constructions Ltd v Paolo Castelli SPA [2021] EWHC 356 (TCC), handed down on 22 February 2021 Judge Hodge QC determined:

“the apparently novel question whether the inclusion within a construction contracts for works in England of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of a foreign court precludes the English court from entertaining proceedings for breach of the term implied by paragraph 23 of the Scheme [i.e. the Scheme for Construction Contracts] that the decision of an adjudicator binds the parties until the final determination of the dispute”.’

Full Story

39 Essex Chambers, 24th February 2021

Source: www.39essex.com

Capacity to consent to marriage, nullity and declarations under the inherent jurisdiction considered (NB v MI) – 1GC: Family Law

Posted February 25th, 2021 in consent, family courts, islamic law, jurisdiction, marriage, news by sally

‘The High Court was presented with an application for a declaration of nonrecognition of a Muslim marriage and a petition for nullity. The parties were married in Pakistan under Sharia law in June 2013. The applicant sought to argue, relying on two expert reports, that she did not have capacity to consent to marriage at the time. The court had to consider the issue of her capacity and then consider whether to make a declaration of non-recognition, or alternatively annul the marriage. The High Court refused the applications as it considered, on the facts of this case, the applicant had capacity to consent at the relevant time. The marriage was therefore valid under English law at its formation. Even if he had formed the opposite view, Mr Justice Mostyn made clear the court would still not have made a declaration under the court’s inherent jurisdiction as he was prevented by statute. Tahmina Rahman, barrister at 1GC Family, considers the case.’

Full Story

1GC: Family Law, 16th February 2021

Source: 1gc.com

Case Note: Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group plc, BHP Billiton plc and BHP Group Ltd – Blackstone Chambers

‘This note considers the judgment of Turner J in the Technology and Construction Court of 10 November 2020 in the case of Município de Mariana & Ors v BHP Group plc, BHP Billiton plc and BHP Group Ltd. In that judgment, Turner J struck out a claim by a very large group of claimants for compensation for damage caused by the 2015 collapse of the Fundão Dam in South Eastern Brazil, in which over 40 million cubic metres of tailings washed into the Doce River with massive human, environmental, and economic cost. This note presents the factual background of the case and sets out the most relevant features of the judgment for the practice of mass tort litigation in the multinational context.’

Full Story

Blackstone Chambers, 15th February 2021

Source: www.blackstonechambers.com

New Judgment: Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor [2021] UKSC 3 – UKSC Blog

‘Royal Dutch Shell Plc (‘RDS’) is the parent company of the Shell group of companies, incorporated in the UK. The Shell Petroleum Company of Nigeria Limited (‘SPDC’, the other Respondent) is an exploration and production company incorporated in Nigeria and is a subsidiary of RDS.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 12th February 2021

Source: ukscblog.com

Principle of finality in litigation – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted January 19th, 2021 in delay, enforcement, judgments, jurisdiction, news, sanctions by sally

‘A judgment made in open court takes effect when it is made and not when it is subsequently sealed. The lapse of time between the making of an order in open court and sealing it may be taken by the unsuccessful party as an opportunity to rehearse legal arguments or to produce new evidence to persuade the court to revisit and amend its order before it is sealed.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 18th January 2021

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

HMRC v IGE USA Investments Ltd [2020] EWHC 1716 (Ch) – the role of statements of case and Lists of Issues for Disclosure in applications to vary an order for Extended Disclosure under the Disclosure Pilot Scheme – Hardwicke Chambers

‘Whilst Standard Disclosure (under CPR 31) remains in force, the Disclosure Pilot has provided a more flexible menu of disclosure options for the majority of cases in the Business and Property Courts. There is a degree of overlap between CPR 31 and the Pilot Scheme, but there are some significant divergences. One of those is paragraph 18 of the Pilot Scheme, which allows variations of pre-existing orders for Extended Disclosure. The scope of the court’s jurisdiction under paragraph 18 of the Disclosure Pilot was central to this appeal.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 8th January 2021

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Developments following Ground Developments… or not – Practical Law: Construction Blog

‘Writing on this blog almost exactly four years ago, David Pliener noted a potentially interesting change in the TCC’s approach to enforcing adjudicators’ decisions. In the case of Ground Developments Ltd v FCC Construction, Fraser J signalled that, perhaps, a claimant applying for summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision might not need to meet the summary judgment test after all. Now that Ground Developments has had time to mature, it might be a good time to check in and see how things have gone since. Has Fraser J’s judgment heralded a brave new world?’

Full Story

Practical Law: Construction Blog, 15th December 2020

Source: constructionblog.practicallaw.com

The law applicable to an arbitration agreement: Part 1 of our analysis of Enka v OOO Insurance – Hardwicke Chambers

‘In the eagerly awaited judgment in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, the Supreme Court finally settled an important issue in the law of arbitration that has long divided the authorities and commentary: in the absence of a choice by the parties, where the law applicable to the main contract differs from that of the seat, it is the law of the seat that governs the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. Our Overview on the decision sets out the key holdings; Part I (below) of our commentary on the decision examines the reasoning of the Majority in greater depth.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd December 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

High Court strikes out group action as an abuse of process: Municipo de Mariana v BHP Group PLC [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC) – Henderson Chambers

‘The High Court has struck out claims brought by more than 200,000 Brazilian claimants in the English courts against British and Australian holding companies in relation to the collapse of the Fundao Dam in Brazil in 2015. In Municipo de Mariana v BHP Group PLC ([2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC)) Turner J found the claims to be an abuse of process and also considered that, in the alternative, the proceedings should be stayed under the Recast Brussels Regulation and on the basis of forum non conveniens. While Turner J emphasised that the factual background of this case was central to his conclusions, his judgment contains a detailed analysis of the relevant caselaw and his consideration of the facts surrounding the claim will no doubt be of interest to parties involved in similar cross-jurisdictional and group actions. Charles Gibson QC led the Counsel team for the Defendants.’

Full Story

Henderson Chambers, 19th November 2020

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

The cart before the horse when requesting an adjudicator: Land End Developments Construction Limited v Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited [2020] EWHC 2338 – Hardwicke Chambers

‘These proceedings related to an adjudicator’s decision dated 27th April 2020 (“the 27th April Decision”) under the Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1998 as amended (“the Scheme”). Lane End Developments Construction Limited (“Lane End”) was the main contractor on a housing development (“the Development”) and Kingstone Civil Engineering Limited (“Kingstone”) was sub-contracted to carry out enabling works for the Development. On 2nd March 2020, Kingstone issued Interim Payment Application No. 17 in the sum of £356,439.19, but Lane End did not serve a Pay Less Notice nor, until 26th March, did it serve a Payment Notice.’

Full Story

Hardwicke Chambers, 13th November 2020

Source: hardwicke.co.uk

Mirchandani v Lord Chancellor [2020] EWCA Civ 1260 – CrimeCast.Law

‘The case was concerned with a private prosecution for fraud offences, which had ultimately resulted in a £20 million confiscation order and £17 million compensation orders. The private prosecutor’s unsuccessful submissions against a third party in proceedings to enforce the confiscation order had led to the unusual spectacle of the Lord Chancellor intervening and persuading a High Court judge to reverse her decision on a jurisdictional question and set aside the order she had previously made. It prompted the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) to conduct a comprehensive review of the primary and secondary legislation and the authorities on private prosecutions, confiscation, costs and the sometimes blurred lines between criminal and civil proceedings.’

Full Story

CrimeCast.Law, 24th November 2020

Source: crimecast.law

Deprivation of liberty: Unlawful placements of children – Transparency Project

‘Can an English family court order the unlawful detention of a Welsh child?’

Full Story

Transparency Project, 22nd November 2020

Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk

Who has jurisdiction and under what circumstances? – Falcon Chambers

‘This paper deals with one of life’s big questions: “why are we here?”, albeit the “here” refers to one or more of the County Court, the First Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), and sometimes two of them at the same time.’

Full Story

Falcon Chambers, 2nd November 2020

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Reconsideration or review? – Local Government Lawyer

Posted November 2nd, 2020 in appeals, jurisdiction, local government, news, planning, statutory interpretation by tracey

‘Owain Rhys James looks at an inspector’s jurisdiction under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 30th October 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Enka v. Chubb in the Supreme Court: Which Law is it Anyway? – 4 New Square

‘Where the law governing a contract containing an arbitration agreement differs from the law of the nominated “seat” of the arbitration, which law – absent any express choice – governs the arbitration agreement itself? That was the question that the Supreme Court had to grapple with in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, in which judgment was handed down on 9 October 2020. George Spalton and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square consider the decision.’

Full Story

4 New Square, 14th October 2020

Source: www.4newsquare.com

Court of Appeal identifies lessons on out of hours applications after disabled man sees human rights breached – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Court of Appeal has set out seven lessons for judges and practitioners in cases where urgent applications without notice are made, after concluding that a disabled man had his human rights breached.’

Full Story

Local Government Lawyer, 29th October 2020

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Keith Bush and Huw Pritchard: Implications of the Independent Review of Administrative Law for Devolved Government in Wales – UK Constitutional Law Association

‘The devolution of legislative and executive powers to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has now been a feature of the UK constitution for over 20 years. The three devolution settlements establish patterns of governance for the devolved territories which involve a delicate balance between the proper spheres of activity of devolved and UK institutions. Any major reform affecting the powers of one level of government inevitably impacts on the other. As the history of the implementation of the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU has demonstrated, failure to consider, from the outset, the impact on devolved government of proposed measures, on the misconceived grounds that those measures only strictly relate to matters reserved to the UK level of government, inevitably leads to unpredicted consequences, legislative complexity and an enhanced level of political controversy.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd October 2020

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org

Implication and imputation; the Supreme Court’s decision in Enka – Six Pump Court

‘This article considers some of the particular aspects in the recent Supreme Court decision of Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi v OOO Insurance Company Chubb & Others [2020] UKSC 38. In particular it looks at the significance of the distinction between implication of agreement through application of ordinary contractual principles and imputation of terms by the application of conflict of law provisions contained in the Rome I Regulation or as established by the common law.’

Full Story

Six Pump Court, 20th October 2020

Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk

FS v RS and JS – A Most Unusual Case about the bank of mum and dad… – Transparency Project

‘Described as “a most unusual case”, the Family Court at the Royal Courts of Justice recently dismissed a forty-one-year-old son’s claim that the “bank of mum and dad” was legally obligated to maintain him. Most court orders for the payment of maintenance of children provide for that obligation to end at the age of 18 or upon the child leaving school. The courts retain jurisdiction to make or vary orders for maintenance of children in limited circumstances, including where there is already a court order in force, to meet expenses in connection with education or training for a trade, profession or vocation, and where the child has expenses attributable to a disability. In FS v RS and JS [2020] EWFC 63, Sir James Munby considered whether the court had jurisdiction in relation to claims under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Children Act 1989 and whether jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction could be exercised as the Applicant asserted. This is an overview of Munby J’s remarkable judgment in light of an unprecedented proposition upon the court’s traditionally paternal or parental character.’

Full Story

Transparency Project, 19th October 2020

Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk

New Judgment: Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S. v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 – UKSC Blog

‘The central issue on this appeal is how the governing law of an arbitration agreement is to be determined when the law applicable to the contract containing it differs from the law of the “seat” of the arbitration, the place chosen for the arbitration in the arbitration agreement.’

Full Story

UKSC Blog, 9th October 2020

Source: ukscblog.com