Browse Options

Updating the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules

The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules were adopted in 1976, and have been both broadly used and widely praised as simple and straightforward. Remarkably, in 34 years they have not been revised – until now. Revisions were finally approved this summer, and arbitration agreements concluded after August 15, 2010 and referring to the UNCITRAL Rules are presumed to refer to these revised rules, unless the parties otherwise agree. Given the length of time since they were first introduced, significant revisions might have been expected. But in testament to their basic soundness, many of the revisions are little more than tweaks.

The revisions se [...]

The New Russian Mediation Laws – Coming to terms with Alternative Dispute Resolution?

In comparison to the Western world, business culture in Russia is more often than not one of confrontation and of mutual tests of strength, especially in the construction sector. Hence the important volumes of court decisions carrying the authority of res judicata to settle a dispute, while alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods such as mediation relying on the parties’ bona fide have been much less used so far.

In this regard, the recent adoption on July 27, 2010 of Federal Laws 193-FZ and 194-FZ improving the legal regime of Mediation (the Mediation Laws) can be seen as a bold and satisfying legislative move to complete the legal framework of ADR in Russia and stimulate the use of these methods (the arbitration legal regime has indeed been settled for long already by Federal Laws of July 7, 1993 and July 24, 2002). These Mediation Laws will come into force on January 1, 2011. [...]

Every dog has its day … in court!

Chihuahuas…Retrievers…even St Bernards…Our evening constitutional round the Mid-Levels brings my wife and I into contact with a wide range of our canine friends, in varying degrees mostly unsuitable for living in the confines of the average Hong Kong apartment. However, I eye these mutts with new respect, following the influence of a particularly well-qualified pooch called Lulu, on a recent decision of the Technology & Construction Court in London.

IT supplier EDS is to pay a total of GB£318 million to settle a dispute over a contract which it entered into 10 years ago with the broadcaster BSkyB . This payment marks the end of one of the IT industry’s longest-running and most expensi [...]

How to finance PFI projects in the credit crisis

Few in the UK – or Europe for that matter – will have escaped news of a shrinking construction sector as public sector cuts across the continent look set to drastically reduce funding for public infrastructure projects. Reuters only last month was reporting a forecast 4% decrease in construction output in 2010
In the UK, the head of the National Audit Office (the body scrutinising public spending on behalf of Parliament) has called for a project-by-project review of future private finance initiative contracts, with stricter criteria being employed than in the last two years, to establish the most appropriate funding methods.

Who’s afraid of political risks?

In any cross-border financing, parties (banks specially) take a political risk in the sense that a collapse of the existing political order in the borrower’s country or the imposition of new taxes, exchange transfer restrictions, nationalisation or other laws may jeopardise the prospects of repayment and recovery. The term political risk is widely used in relation to Project Finance and can conveniently be defined to mean both the danger of political and financial instability within a given country and the danger that government action (or inaction) will have a negative impact either on the continued existence of the project or on the cash flow generating capacity of a project.

4th Biennial IBA Conference on Construction Projects from Conception to Completion, 17-18 September 2010

On 17-18 September 2010, the IBA International Construction Projects Committee will hold the 4th Biennial IBA Conference on Construction Projects from Conception to Completion. The Conference is supported by the Dispute Resolution Board Foundation, the International Federation of Consulting Engineers, the ICC, the Society of Construction Law, and the IBA European Regional Forum.

The event is co-chaired by David Robertson of Fenwick Elliott LLP in London and Cecilia Vidigal Monteiro de Barros of Xavier Bernardes Bragança in São Paulo, and like earlier editions, it will take place in Brussels.

Speakers from different jurisdictions will cover topics on recent developments in construction i [...]

Hitch “Inn” Time?

Whilst interest in the recent UK judgment in the case of City Inn v Shepherd Construction may be confined to these shores, it is sufficiently important in the UK construction arena to warrant a mention on this Blog. The level of interest generated by this case initially may seem disproportionate to the complexity of issues and the amounts of money at stake. But ever since the option to adjudicate became compulsory for all UK based “construction contracts” in 1996 (Under the Housing Grants, Construction & Regeneration Act – see opsi), there has been a distinct lack of relevant construction UK case law on matters such as causation and delay – as parties choose the quicker, cheap [...]

Ten years of Project Delivery in Australia

Perhaps because we live ‘Down Under’, Australians have always been somewhat contrarian. We like our beer cold, for example, and play our favourite game of football with a pointy ball instead of a round one.

So while the past ten years have provided an interesting economic backdrop for players in the construction industry – with the world economy moving from boom to near bust to (hopefully) better times ahead – for most of those years Australia’s construction industry simply surged ahead, even during the global economic downturn of 2008/2009.

Nonetheless, changes in the economy did lead to changes in how projects are delivered in Australia. Which begs the question – how has project d [...]

A New Hurdle When Defending a Liquidated Damages Assessment

When an Owner comes after the Contractor for liquidated delay damages (LDs) after a project is completed late, the Contractor’s only substantive defense is to argue that the delay was excused by force majeure or Owner actions (naturally there may be procedural defenses, like timeliness). However, a recent decision by the United States Court of Federal Appeals for the Federal Circuit has erected a new requirement that the Contractor must first fulfill before it can assert its substantive defense. The decision in question is M. Maropakis Carpentry, Inc. v. United States, ___ F.3d ____, No. 2009-5024 (June 17, 2010). It holds that in order to dispute the basis for an LD assessment by the U [...]