Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Piper Alderman assisted LCM Operations Pty Ltd (LCM) in its successful declaration which upheld the enforceability of its class action funding agreements in the Gladstone Fisheries class action.

The decision is a landmark one. It confirms the validity of the class action funding business model in jurisdictions whose legislatures have not abolished the tort of maintenance and champerty (ie Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory). That is, funders are able to fund class actions with minimal fear of prosecution under the torts of maintenance and champerty.

Read more: Funder Succeeds in Declaration Enforcing its Class Action Agreements

What happens when confidential communications between a client and their lawyer are leaked and end up in the hands of a third party?

Partner, Martin del Gallego and Law Clerk, Matthew Harris review the recent High Court of Australia decision of Glencore International AG & Ors v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia & Ors.

Read more: Trouble in Paradise: Glencore Loses High Court Bid to Restrain Tax Office From Using Leaked...

Piper Alderman Partner, Florian Ammer and Associate, Hannah Veldre discuss the manner in which courts may correct errors in the description of parties to contracts.

Parties may find themselves relying upon or seeking to enforce contracts where one or more parties have been mis-described, for example by the addition or omission of a word in their name, or as a result of a typographical error.  Such errors may be treated by courts as ‘misnomers’ which are capable of correction (as a matter of contractual construction) without the need for rectification.  This article examines the decision in New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] NSWSC 176 in which the mis-description of a party’s name in a contract was able to be corrected in this manner.

Read more: Mis-Description of Parties to Contracts and the Doctrine of Misnomer

Arbitration is a notable and prominent form of resolving disputes in the commercial world nowadays. The procedure for filing arbitration is relatively straightforward and is similar in all the arbitration centres around the world. However, the procedure for enforcement of an arbitral award differs with the jurisdiction, and there are several obstacles the parties can encounter whilst enforce arbitration awards as highlighted in this article by Top Lawyers in Dubai. Corporate lawyers in Dubai have made it easy for you to comprehend the issues in relation to enforcement of arbitral awards under the Federal Law Number 6 of 2018 concerning the Federal Arbitration law (the New Arbitration Law or the Law) which has repealed the arbitration clauses under Federal Law Number 11 of 1992, the Civil Procedure Code (the CPC).

Read more: How to Enforce Arbitration Awards in the UAE

Author: Mr. Manish Dembla, Partner, Kochhar & Co.

In the past few years, the Indian Government has realised that its justice delivery system especially in respect of commercial disputes needs to keep pace with India’s economic growth. Though the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Act”) is based on the UNCITRAL principles, judicial decisions had virtually obliterated the original intent of the Act and gravely undermined its avowed objective of expeditious dispute resolution. In fact, in certain kind of agreements, the author had started advising his clients not to incorporate arbitration clauses.

In order to resurrect arbitration as an efficient and preferred method of dispute resolution, the Law Commission of India in its 246th Report had suggested sweeping changes to the Act. Pursuant to the said Report, the Act was amended with effect from 23rd October 2015.

One of the significant amendments was insertion of sub-section (6A) in Section 11 of the Act which provided that at the stage of appointment of an arbitrator, the judicial authority exercising the power of appointment is to confine itself to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement. However, the judicial decisions which followed have been contrary to the intent of the amendment and have diluted this provision.

This article attempts to trace the history of the exercise of judicial power at the stage of appointment of arbitrators and offers a critical analysis of the most recent judgment of the Supreme Court on the issue in Garware Wall Ropes v. Coastal Marine Constructions & Engineering Ltd(“Garware Wall Ropes”)