Search

An overview of the use of arbitration agreements in commercial aviation contracts, especially lease agreements, with particular reference to the establishment of the Hague Court of Arbitration for Aviation (‘Hague CAA’) in July 2022. It considers the advantages and disadvantages of arbitration agreements, as an alternative to state court jurisdiction clauses, in commercial aviation contracts, surveys the current provision of arbitration services to the aviation sector, examines the service offered by the Hague CAA and analyses the potential benefits and risks of writing Hague CAA arbitration agreements into new leases and contracts. Aviation, arbitration, court, enforcement, Hague, insurance, jurisdiction

This article analyses the operation of cut-through clauses in aviation insurance and reinsurance policies, with particular reference to the Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA) standard form cutthrough endorsement, AVN 109. It does so from the perspectives of the usual parties to aviation insurance policies, including on the insured’s side owners, operators, lessors and financiers, and on the underwriters’ side insurers and reinsurers. It considers cut-through clauses’ operation in the context of fronting arrangements, insurer insolvency (which brings into play the anti-deprivation principle), other bars on payment and coverage disputes. An insured’s ability to compel payment directly from the relevant insurer and the legal proceedings that may be required are discussed. The analysis is provided primarily under English law, including reference to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1990 and Randgold Resources Ltd & Anor v. Santam Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2493 (Comm), though the laws of New York and other jurisdictions are also briefly considered. The article concludes with practical recommendations for aviation insurance policy holders to consider when negotiating cut-through clauses, so as to maximize the protection that they provide. Insurance, reinsurance, cut-through, aviation, AVN 109

This article analyses two important recent decisions of the English court on apparent bias in international arbitration issued in early 2016. The article explains the English law concept of apparent bias and defines the legal test, providing illustrative examples. The article then examines each judgment in turn and concludes with the lessons that can be learned from them. The decisions are Cofely Ltd v (1) Anthony Bingham and (2) Knowles Ltd [2016] EWHC 240 (Comm) and W Ltd v M Sdn Bhd [2016] EWHC 422 (Comm). They arise out of two commonly encountered issues. The first is in Cofely, where the arbitrator is regularly appointed by a party. The second is in W v M, where the arbitrator's law firm has a commercial relationship with a party's group of companies. In Cofely the arbitrator's appointment was revoked by the English court on the basis of apparent bias. In W v M, a challenge to an award on the basis of apparent bias by the arbitrator was rejected by the English court. The judgments illustrate the approach that English arbitrators, judges and lawyers are likely to take to issues of arbitrator bias. That involves making reference to the IBA Guidelines, but not treating them as determinative. The decisions are of relevance to any practitioner who may become involved in arbitrations involving English parties or law, or who need to enforce an award in England. Because they contain analyses of the IBA Guidelines, they are also relevant to arbitration and related court proceedings involving the IBA Guidelines even where there is no direct nexus with English law.

In recent years the costs and duration of international commercial arbitration have generated considerable discussion. An important facet of this debate is the extent to which it is possible to obtain summary disposition of claims in arbitration. In England, where there is a valid arbitration agreement, claimants are compelled to refer claims to arbitration, notwithstanding that in the absence of the arbitration agreement they would be entitled to obtain summary judgment at court. However, neither the English Arbitration Act 1996 nor the commonly used institutional codes specifically provide comparable procedures for the summary disposition of claims in arbitration. A party seeking summary judgment in arbitration must, therefore, appeal to the tribunal's procedural discretion, and risk any award granted on a summary or expedited basis being appealed in the English court and refused recognition and enforcement under the New York Convention. This contrasts with the situation in the Netherlands, where the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure and the rules of the Netherlands Arbitration Institute explicitly address summary arbitral proceedings. This article analyses the extent to which it is possible to obtain summary or expedited remedies in arbitrations seated in England and in the Netherlands, and compares this to the position under the rules of each country's courts.