Micula V European Commission (In Cases T‑624/15, T‑694/15 and T‑704/15)
In the December 2018 issue of the Arbitration Briefing, we featured the English Court of Appeal decision in Micula. The General Court of the European Union has now issued its decision on this difficult intersection between arbitral awards, the scope of the EU jurisdiction and (more particularly) state aid rules.
Sana Hassib Sabbagh v Khoury & Others  EWCA Civ 1219 [England and Wales]
In an appeal against the grant of an injunction to restrain a party from pursuing an arbitration in Lebanon, the Court of Appeal provides interesting guidance on its jurisdiction to issue anti-arbitration injunctions.
ZCCM INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS PLC v KANSANSHI HOLDINGS PLC
KANSANSHI MINING PLC  EWHC 1285 (Comm) [England and Wales]
In a case concerned with loan transactions in the Zambian mining industry, Cockerill J was forced to grapple with a threshold question pursuant to a section 68 challenge: namely when a decision constitutes an award capable of challenge. The judgment provides a useful summary of the principles applicable to deciding the question both derived from existing authority with contributions from Cockerill J on the component parts of deciding what the ‘reasonable recipient’ would regard as being the objective attributes of the decision in question.
P V D  EWHC 1277 (Comm) [England and Wales]
The threshold for challenging an arbitral award within the English jurisdiction is famously high. Yet in this recent decision of the English High Court, the authorities were applied to an award that was based upon a line of argument that was not put to a key witness in cross-examination. An important example of how breach of the principles of natural justice might compromise an award, the judgment of Michael Burton is this issues’ must-read.
The Arbitration Briefing is part of the Bloomsbury Law Online Service. The full briefing is available here.