In a recent decision, the Supreme Court confirmed that Section 34(7) of the Arbitration Act – under which an arbitral award must be set aside if an irregularity occurred in the course of the proceedings and probably influenced the case's outcome – should be applied restrictively. This decision is a rare example of a Swedish court setting aside an award based on procedural irregularities under Section 34(7).
Unbeknown to many, Section 1782 of Title 28 of the US Code permits parties to obtain discovery in the United States in aid of non-US legal proceedings, including – in some instances – international arbitrations. Such discovery can include documents and sworn testimony (eg, depositions). In conducting an arbitration seated outside the United States (or other non-US legal proceedings), it is useful to understand the mechanics, requirements and key issues of Section 1782 discovery.
The assistant attorney general recently suggested that antitrust enforcers should update their analytical framework to account for modern corporate structures, signalling the potential for antitrust violations when officers and directors serve multiple competing companies. The assistant attorney general's speech is a reminder that behaviour that is not explicitly prohibited by the letter of the antitrust statutes may still raise eyebrows at the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general.
A recent Court of Appeal case addressed whether a negative declaratory arbitration award is enforceable. The decision emphasises the narrow grounds that enable the high court to refuse to recognise or enforce an arbitration award, as long as the requirements of Section 38(2) of the Arbitration Act are complied with. It also establishes a precedent that there is no barrier to the enforcement of a negative declaratory arbitration award.
Although still fairly new, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) diligently investigated and penalised monopolistic behaviour in 2018, publishing a dozen cases alongside its local enforcement agencies which attracted media attention. Notably, livelihood-related industries (including the pharmaceutical industry) and trade associations appeared to come under the SAMR's spotlight.
In post-arbitral proceedings, parties challenging an unfavourable award or its enforcement often argue that they were deprived of the right to present their case or that the tribunal violated the rules of procedure or committed some other procedural error and often request the state courts to order the tribunal to present the arbitral case file. A recent Supreme Court decision evaluated the usefulness and necessity of granting such requests and clarified that such measures should be granted only rarely.
Construction contracts are often part of a wider suite of project contracts, involving multiple, overlapping parties. This intertwined suite of contracts means that when a dispute arises, it arises under multiple project contracts, which can be difficult to deal with. Choosing arbitration as the dispute resolution procedure for each project contract – and ensuring that the arbitration agreement in each project contract is consistent – will help parties to achieve consolidation of future disputes under different project contracts.
The admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme Court recently ruled in a case concerning a marine accident which occurred when the bow of a sailing boat rammed the starboard side of a speedboat. It was highly disputed whether the sailing boat had been simultaneously using open sails and its engine. In reaching its conclusion, the court considered the evidence and the Rules of the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea.
A recent Court of Appeal decision demonstrates the high cost of bad faith when terminating a senior employee for cause. The decision reads as a how-to guide in reverse (ie, what not to do when terminating an employee) and highlights that employers should not (among other things) refuse to inform a terminated employee as to why they are alleging cause or file baseless counterclaims.
In a digital-age David versus Goliath case, the Federal Court recently held that the Quebec government had infringed two patents owned by Dr Luc Bessette relating to a shared medical records system that he had invented 20 years ago. This is the first time that the Quebec government has been held liable for patent infringement and the decision provides important guidance to institutions, enterprises and inventors alike.
In a recent decision, the Tenth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of qui tam claims, reasoning that the relator's allegations had satisfied Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among other things, the defendant contended that the court's intervention is necessary to resolve a deep circuit split on whether Rule 9(b)'s particularity requirement can be relaxed where a defendant exclusively holds the information necessary to state a claim.
Recent reports suggest that the need to remedy defects in a faulty fire prevention system and other construction faults will further delay the opening of the new Berlin Brandenburg International Airport. For example, an internal report by TÜV Rheinland detailed 11,519 deficiencies in the airport's emergency lighting and safety power supply cables, which were replaced after the failed opening in 2012.
Health Canada recently released its Forward Regulatory Plan 2019-2021: Regulations Amending the Patented Medicines Regulations. This brief document provides a high-level overview of the anticipated amendments released in draft form on 2 December 2017, the expected impact of these amendments and the consultation process.
Industrial Tribunal cases tend to be sensitive in nature as they essentially deal with a person's livelihood; however, when the Industrial Tribunal is faced with matters which have also been referred to the courts of criminal jurisdiction, such cases are even more complex. In particular, there are questions around how an employer should regulate itself regarding an employee's employment when it is confronted with a pending decision by the criminal court.
Digital platforms which connect logistics service providers with their customers have become commonplace. A relevant question from a legal perspective is whether such a platform acts as a carrier or freight forwarder. The answer to this question will affect a platform's civil and public law exposure. As such, platforms should consider their legal position carefully.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal recently upheld a decision that the removal of outdated contractual entitlements following a Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (TUPE) transfer was not void, as the sole or principal reason was not the transfer or a reason connected with the transfer. This is a relatively rare example of contractual changes following a TUPE transfer being permissible.
A new law modifying the Labour Code and the Modified Law establishing the General Status of Civil Servants recently came into effect. The law has increased the minimum statutory paid leave entitlement from 25 to 26 days a year. It has also declared Europe Day, celebrated annually on 9 May, a statutory public holiday.
The Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf recently confirmed the underlying principle of Article 18(2)(d) of the Montreal Convention – namely, that air carriers cannot be held liable for damages which are entirely outside their sphere of risk and influence. However, this decision is also a useful reminder that an exclusion of liability clause is not a free pass for carriers.
The Royal Decree-Law on Urgent Measures to Guarantee Equal Treatment and Opportunities for Women and Men in Employment and Occupation recently came into force, amending the Workers Statute and the Equality Law. The decree-law, which applies to companies established in Spain, aims to improve gender equality between women and men, reinforce equal pay and enable parents to share childcare responsibilities.
The Federal Court recently heard a case in which two passengers claimed damages from Aeromexico after they had been ordered to disembark an aircraft for being disruptive. The case provides an insight into the question of whether consumer protection law trumps flight security concerns.