Aristotle:
“How many a dispute could have been deflated into a single paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms.”
The first half of 2014 has seen a number of important decisions affecting construction and engineering practitioners. However, we have not included cases arising from the Jackson reforms, particularly costs management and relief from sanctions applications as a consequence of the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Mitchell v News Group. Continue reading
“Procedural irregularities” are increasingly being used as the basis for resisting domestic arbitral awards in the UAE. For any party who is or may be involved in an arbitration in the UAE, it is critical to understand the procedural requirements contained in the UAE’s Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and how this is being interpreted by the UAE courts. This is because, to those unfamiliar with the CPC, the grounds for resisting enforcement may seem to be based on minor and insignificant technicalities.
Over the last year or so, much has been written about the impact of the costs management and costs budgeting aspects of the Jackson reforms on High Court litigation. It doesn’t stop at written articles either. Whenever I go to a construction function these days, it seems to be the one topic that everyone is talking about. Everyone seems to have a “war story” about some aspect of costs management or the impact that the Mitchell decision has had on the conduct of litigation. It is often said that these reforms will push parties away from the courts and into the arms of arbitrators. I do not know if that is true or whether, once everyone gets the hang of the new(ish) rules, things will bed down and it will be business as usual at the TCC. Last year, Jonathan considered some aspects of costs in arbitration, but I wonder if adjudication could be the answer for those with concerns about the courts.
