Important COVID-19 Update

x

These are certainly challenging times for us all.

We are committed to doing everything we can to prioritise the wellbeing of our people, those who use our services and their representatives and the communities we serve to help contain the spread of COVID-19. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on Saturday, our people will begin working remotely from today, Monday 23 March.

Having well developed online dispute resolution options, it will in many ways be business as usual for us as we focus on providing a seamless service, regardless of where our Registry staff, arbitrators, mediators and other dispute resolution practitioners are working.

We know you are working through similar challenges to ours and that these are uncertain times for everyone. From all of us here we send our thoughts to you, your teams and families.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you and we will keep you informed with any further updates.

RESOLUTION ISSUE 24

In this issue, we look at the dangers of defective dispute resolution clauses – as have been highlighted in recent High Court cases. In Fiona Tregonning’s article on page 7 she examines Tumatatoro Limited v HJS AG Limited & Ben Vanderkolk [2019] NZHC 1047 and the problems caused by a clumsily constructed dispute resolution clause in a lease.

This quarter we feature part one of a two-part series focusing on using mediation as a business tool. In this instalment Paul Stills considers the benefits of using early intervention facilitation in commercial relationships.

In Case in Brief we examine Pukeroa Properties (no. 2) Limited v Rotorua Hunting & Fishing New Zealand Limited [2019] NZHC 1367 in which an arbitrators award was challenged and leave to appeal was sought. We look closely at the reasoning for the ensuing judgment.

Elsewhere we delve into BNA v BNB and Anor [2019] SGCA 84 where a lack of clarity in a contract resulted in a drawn-out international dispute, ending in the Singapore Court of Appeal. In a similar vein on page 29, we look at an English Court of Appeal decision on a dispute where parties to a contract failed to distinguish between the arbitration agreement and the contract as a whole when deciding which governing law to choose.

Click here to read ReSolution Issue 24

Click here to download a low res. pdf

 

CONTENTS

  • “The dangers of defective dispute resolution clauses” by Fiona Tregonning
  • “Cour de Cassation upholds decision to set aside an award following an arbitrator’s non-disclosure” by Laurence Franc-Menget & Peter Archer
  • “Using mediation as a business tool – Part 1” by Paul Sills
  • “Singapore Court of Appeal confirms that the parties’ intention to arbitrate should not be given effect ‘at all costs'” by Brenda Horrigan, Daniel Waldek, Waina Ye & Mitchell Dearness
  • Case in Brief: “The extent of a landlord’s freedom to vary tenancy mix plans: Pukeroa Properties (no.2) Limited v Rotorua Hunting & Fishing New Zealand Limited [2019] NZHC 1367” by Sophie Hursthouse
  • “Court of Appeal holds that a choice of law clause also determines the law of the arbitration agreement” by Richard Bamforth & Liz Williams