Charlie Morgan

Sep 20, 2023 | mondaq.com | Charlie Morgan |Elizabeth D. Kantor

In Viking Trading OU v Louis Dreyfus Suisse SA [2023] EWHC 2160 (Comm) the English Commercial Court clarified its discretionary power to grant costs of defending a s69 application under the English Act (Act) for permission to appeal an arbitral award, even if costs were not initially sought. This decision provides helpful guidance on best practice for recovering costs in this and other arbitration-related claims.

Aug 8, 2023 | mondaq.com | Charlie Morgan |Elizabeth D. Kantor

In Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v Mrs Xiaomin Zhang [2023] EWHC 1964 (Comm), the English Commercial Court has rejected a challenge to an arbitration award on the grounds of public policy. Although the applicant argued that the terms of the underlying contract were unfair for the purposes of English consumer legislation, the court held that there was no "close connection" with the UK and therefore that the legislation did not apply.

Aug 7, 2023 | lexology.com | Charlie Morgan |Elizabeth D. Kantor

In Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v Mrs Xiaomin Zhang [2023] EWHC 1964 (Comm), the English Commercial Court has rejected a challenge to an arbitration award on the grounds of public policy. Although the applicant argued that the terms of the underlying contract were unfair for the purposes of English consumer legislation, the court held that there was no “close connection” with the UK and therefore that the legislation did not apply.

Jul 27, 2023 | mondaq.com | George McCubbin |Rachel Montagnon |Andrew Moir |Charlie Morgan

As we reported in February, Dr Craig Wright, who claims to be the inventor of Bitcoin, is asserting three Bitcoin-related copyright claims against a number of entities. The earlier decision considered the question of whether or not Dr Wright could serve the proceedings on defendants out of the jurisdiction – which requires that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits of the claim.

Jul 17, 2023 | mondaq.com | Charlie Morgan |Elizabeth D. Kantor

In Global Aerospares Limited v Airest AS [2023] EWHC 1430 (Comm), the English Commercial Court dismissed a claim for directions under s18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (Act). Failing to serve a Request for Arbitration under s14(4) of the Act, with the consequence that the process for the appointment of an arbitrator had not validly begun, was not considered a failure of procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator. Accordingly, s18 of the Act was not engaged and the claim was dismissed.