Arbitration & alternative dispute resolution

Expert determination regularly occurs before or instead of litigation and is useful for the efficient resolution of a dispute. A number of our members have experience in being expert determiners in all our main areas of expertise, both as sole determiners or as part of a panel.

International arbitration is the leading method for resolving cross-border disputes in a neutral forum, often offering businesses greater confidentiality, flexibility, finality and enforceability than traditional court litigation.

Our members have wide experience of acting as advocates and arbitrators in arbitrations conducted under all of the major institutional rules (including the ICC, LCIA, ICDR, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, CIETAC, and ICSID rules, as well as other major arbitral rules such as UNCITRAL) and with various different seats.

Members of Chambers also act in court litigation ancillary to arbitration, such as disputes about the validity of arbitration agreements, claims for pre-arbitration injunctive relief, and challenges to and the enforcement of arbitral awards. 

We have experience of arbitrations involving parties from a wide range of industry sectors, including energy, mining, oil & gas, banking & financial services, LLP disputes, trusts and shareholders, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, commodities, international investment, and projects and construction.

Several of our members and associate embers regularly sit as arbitrators, including, Sir Nicholas Patten, Sir William Blackburne (formerly a judge of the English High Court), Simon Nesbitt KC (formerly co-head of international arbitration at Hogan Lovells), and Paul Klaas (formerly chair of Dorsey & Whitney’s international disputes practice).

Examples of our work in the field of international arbitration include:

• P (a co inc in country A) v D (a co inc in country B) & ors (2019): successful challenge to arbitration award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the grounds that the tribunal had acted unfairly in reaching a decision without the losing party’s main witness being cross-examined on that issue and by basing their decision on a case which had not been argued.
• An LCIA arbitration seated in London between two Nigerian companies involving claims for payment under a Sale & Purchase Agreement and related Guarantees for two deep offshore oil mining leases in Nigeria, and counterclaims relating to management of the relevant oilfields
• An LCIA arbitration seated in Dubai under the Rules of the Dubai International Financial Centre concerning investment banking fees and margin calls on derivatives
• An ICSID arbitration seated in Washington, D.C, concerning copper mining investments
• Yukos Capital S.a.r.l. v OJSC Rosneft Oil Company: part of the long running Yukos affair, claims to enforce arbitral awards worth nearly half a billion dollars which had been set aside by the Russian courts
• An ICC arbitration seated in Bucharest between German and Austrian construction companies on the one hand, and a Romanian state agency on the other, regarding claims arising under an agreement for the rehabilitation of highway bridges
• A Swiss Rules arbitration seated in Zurich between a German chemical manufacturer and a US chemical manufacturer involving a trade secrets/licensing dispute concerning chemical coatings for containers
• IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation: an application to enforce in England a Nigerian arbitral award worth over $150m
• An LCIA arbitration seated in London between a Dutch company and a Tanzanian company involving claims for breach of an exclusivity agreement governed by Dutch and English law and concerning the acquisition of a Tanzanian company
• An ICC arbitration seated in Paris between a French electronics manufacturer and a US airline involving a dispute over the manufacture of aircraft simulators
• JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferralloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd: an arbitration claim in the Commercial Court challenging an Award relating to contracts for supply and manufacture of ferroalloys at a plant in Georgia under ss. 67 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
• An ICDR arbitration seated in New York between a Japanese food processing company and British, US and German food processing companies concerning corporate control issues between formerly related corporations
• An ad hoc arbitration seated in London under the UNCITRAL Rules between the local subsidiaries of two major oil companies, relating to back-in rights arising under a joint operating agreement for the exploitation of an oilfield in the South China Sea
• An ICDR arbitration seated in New York between a North American distributor and an Australian winery owner involving a dispute concerning North American distribution rights of fine wines
• An LCIA arbitration seated in London between an Australian coal mining company and an Indian steel manufacturer involving an $80 million contract claim.

Mediation is now an essential part of the litigator’s tool-kit and, increasingly, the litigation process itself. Recent judicial decisions involve the courts both holding that the refusal of a request for mediation is likely to be treated as being unreasonable and imposing a costs sanction as a result.

We take seriously the need to provide a comprehensive mediation offering and, in addition to our extensive experience as advisers and advocates within mediations, many of the members of Maitland Chambers are accredited by CEDR or ADR group and accept appointments as mediators (please click here to see our accredited mediators). Our members are able to supply not just the usual mediator skills of facilitation but also the specialist knowledge and experience which enables them both to comprehend the legal and commercial issues arising in the dispute and to engage in appropriate and active reality testing with the parties.