We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 52

Pros and cons of common ADR processes

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 2 2012

We set out in this document a short discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of some of the most common dispute resolution processes under the

Automatic referral to mediation introduced in UK County Court Money Claims Centre from 1 October 2012

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 4 2012

The 59th Update to the Civil Procedure Rules came into force on 1 October 2012

Parties cannot avoid Commercial Agents Regulations by choice of non-EU law and arbitration

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 29 2010

In Accentuate v Asigra 2009 EWHC 2655 (QB) the English High Court held it had jurisdiction to hear a claim for compensation under the Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, even though the relevant agreement was subject to a choice of Canadian law and arbitration and the Canadian arbitral tribunal had already ruled against the claim

Alternative dispute resolution e-bulletin

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • January 17 2012

Welcome to our first ADR e-bulletin of 2012

Unilateral jurisdiction clauses may not always be effective

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 13 2012

It is not uncommon, particularly in a finance context, for an agreement to give a wider choice to some parties than others to decide where disputes will be resolved

Clear wording is needed to constitute a submission to the jurisdiction of an adjudicator to resolve a dispute

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 8 2012

In Clarke v JMD 2012 EWHC 2627 (TCC) the court found that the parties had not entered into an ad hoc adjudication, contrary to the adjudicator’s finding

ECJ prohibits use of anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements in the EU

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • March 25 2009

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down a judgment on 10 February confirming the Advocate General's opinion that anti-suit injunctions should not be granted by an EU Member State court in order to restrain proceedings in another Member State on the ground that the proceedings would be in breach of an arbitration agreement

ADR legal developments

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 25 2010

The final report in Lord Justice Jackson's year-long costs review was published on 14 January 2010

Mediator summoned to give evidence at trial regarding the mediation

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 4 2009

In Farm Assist Limited (In Liquidation) v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) 2009 EWHC 1002 (TCC), the court concluded that in exceptional circumstances, the confidentiality provisions of the Mediation Agreement between the parties and the mediator can be set aside in the interests of justice

Lord Justice Jackson's costs review views on ADR

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 4 2009

In January 2009 Lord Justice Jackson was appointed to lead a fundamental review of the rules and principles governing the costs of civil litigation and to make recommendations in order to promote access to justice at proportionate cost