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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 54

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


UK High Court reviews temporary binding effect of adjudicator’s decision
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 22 2012

A fundamental characteristic of adjudication as a form of ADR is that it is binding only until the dispute is finally decided through litigation or arbitration


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


Court rules that mediation and adjudication can run concurrently
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • February 25 2010

In Ericsson AB v EADS Defence & Security Systems Ltd 2009 EWHC 2598 (TCC) the court ruled that express wording was needed if parties wanted to make types of dispute resolution mutually exclusive


The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) & ADR Group set up mediation service for resolving commercial disputes
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 4 2009

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) and ADR Group, have recently joined forces to create a dedicated mediation service for resolving commercial disputes


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


UK adjudication: Court of Appeal denies adjudicator his fees in light of breach of natural justice
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • October 25 2012

The Court of Appeal in PC Harrington Contractors Ltd v. Systech International Ltd 2012 EWCA Civ 1371 has held that where an adjudicator produces a decision that is unenforceable due to a breach of the rules of natural justice, then his fees should not be paid


ICC to revise ADR, Expert Determination and Dispute Board Rules
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • November 8 2012

Earlier this year, the ICC Commission on Arbitration set up a Consultative Task Force comprising experts in the field of international ADR to review and revise their ADR Rules, Rules for Expertise and Dispute Board Rules


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


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