RESOLUTION ISSUE 19
In this issue, we feature Participating, Non-participating and Boycotting Parties under Proposed Article 16. We also look at the Court of Arbitration for Art, mediation power imbalances, issues for arbitrators in determining jurisdiction, whether the scope of a reference to arbitration could be reduced by the pleadings, the Supreme Court in London’s reaffirmation of the legal effect of No Oral Modification clauses, the European Court of Human Rights’ decision as to whether the Court of Arbitration for Sport procedures are compatible with the right to a fair trial; and more.
In Case in Brief, Fiona Tregonning and Kalyani Dixit look at the decision in Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas Pte Ltd v Eurochem Trading GMBH  EWHC 909 (Comm) in which the The English High Court has dismissed challenges to the jurisdiction of two arbitral tribunals in a case which – notwithstanding the outcome – highlights the importance of parties ensuring their network of contracts have clear, express and aligned dispute resolution clauses.
- Should One-Size Fit All? Participating, Non-Participating and Boycotting Parties under Proposed Article 16(4)
- Case in Brief – Dreymoor Fertilisers Overseas Pte Ltd v Eurochem Trading GMBH EWHC 909 (Comm) – “Dispute Resolution Clauses: A Song of (Dis)Harmony by Fiona Tregonning and Kalyani Dixit
- “The High Standards of the Court of Arbitration for Art” by Gian Paolo Coppola, Maria Grazia Longoni and Miriam Loro Piana
- “Mediation Power Imbalances: Weighing the Arguments” by Nigel Dunlop
- “The Scope of a Reference to Arbitration is not Limited by the Pleadings” by Richard Bamforth and Liz Williams
- “Oral Contracts- I Don’t Think So: Supreme Court Rejects Once More a Common Contractual Workaround” by Nick Storrs and Johnny Shearman
- “Has the Dust Really Settled: Issues for Arbitrators in Determining Jurisdiction” by Karen Ingram and Alan Parnell.
- “CAS Procedures Compatible with Right to a Fair Trial Except for Refusal of Public Hearing” by Natalie Voser and Benjamin Gottlieb