Author: Muireann Granville
A confidentiality "ring" or "club" is a group of designated individuals who are authorised by a court to view specified confidential material, which has been disclosed in discovery, and which is withheld from one or more of the parties to the litigation.
The judgment in that case, Goode Concrete v CRH  IEHC 534, provides a useful review of the case law on confidentiality rings.
The Reason Behind the Legislation
Since 1950, when the 5521 numbered Code of the Labor Courts had entered into force, the population in Turkey has increased rapidly, business life has changed and developed and, accordingly, the number of labor law disputes and types have increased. During this period of time, significant amendments have been made in the core legislation and regulations on the judicial principles of the civil courts. However, the legislation regulating the jurisdiction before the Labor Courts has not been within the scope of these amendments.
Due to the principle of autonomy / separability of an arbitration agreement from the underlying contract, the validity of the underlying contract and the arbitration agreement should be evaluated independent of each other1. However, it should be analyzed whether this autonomy effects the determination of the applicable law to both agreements. In other words, whether the principle of separability causes the laws that are applicable to the arbitration agreement and to underlying contract to be different2.
This issue is particularly encountered when an arbitration clause is stipulated under the underlying contract. Under the international commercial agreements, the dispute resolution clause and the choice of law clause are stipulated together. At times, these two choices are regulated in the same sentence, sometimes in different sub-articles of the same article, and sometimes in subsequent articles. However, in such cases, it is unclear whether the choice of law refers also to the arbitration agreement. Consequently, it will be controversial whether the law determined to be applicable to the substance of the dispute should also be applied to the arbitration agreement.
Such issue may raise different problems. Firstly, it can be considered whether it is possible to determine the law applicable to the underlying contract and law applicable to the arbitration agreement to be different from each other. In other words, can the parties determine the law applicable to the arbitration agreement in addition to the applicable law to the underlying contract? Later, it should be considered whether it is possible for the law that is determined to be applicable to the underlying contract by the parties or arbitrators or state courts can also apply to the arbitration agreement. If such solution is impossible, should this law be determined separately on the basis that the law applicable to the arbitration agreement is undetermined?
The issue of costs in arbitration is one of the factors to considered before deciding whether to resolve a dispute through arbitration or not. Indeed, arbitration is sometimes criticized as being an "expensive" dispute resolution mechanism. This article provides a general overview of costs and fees in arbitration, as well as the repartition of costs, in light of the survey conducted by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators ("CIArb") titled "CIArb Costs of International Arbitration Survey 2011"1 ("Survey") and, finally, addresses the issue of how to reduce costs in arbitration.
Compensation for moral damages in disputes to be resolved before an arbitral tribunal is a substantial topic. This Article covers the issue of moral damages claims in investment arbitration in light of significant arbitral awards ruled on this matter.
In some cases, it is harder for the decision-makers to rule on compensation for moral damages due to its subjective nature. It is often argued that the distinction between material and moral damages blurs in some circumstances1. Below, the details of moral damages claims in investment arbitration will be examined under two sections according to the claimant of the moral damages which may be either the investor or the host state.