The development of commercial law through case law is section 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 stifling progress?
Esposito, Paolo
The development of commercial law through case law is section 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 stifling progress? - 2008 - Arbitration 74(4) November 2008, 429-438(10) .
Considers whether or not the arbitration process for commercial disputes, as set out in the English Arbitration Act 1996, is an impediment to the development of commercial law. Asks to what extent the English courts should continue to play a creative role in developing commercial law. Includes examples of cases drawn from a number of jurisdictions.
ARBITRATION ACT 1996 S69
MARDOF PEACH AND CO LTD V ATTICA SEA CARRIERS CORP OF LIBERIA, THE LACONIA
CANDLER V CRANE CHRISTMAS AND CO
HAMILTON V MENDES
UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES ART 33(3)
B.T.P.TIOXIDE LTD V PIONEER SHIPPING LTD AND ARMADA MARINE SA, THE NEMA
ANTAIOS COMPANIA NAVIERA SA V SALEN REDERIERNA A.B.
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD V ENRON OIL AND GAS INDIA LTD
TRANSFIELD SHIPPING INC V MERCATOR SHIPPING INC (THE ACHILLEAS)
LOBB V AINTREE
DEMCO INVESTMENTS AND COMMERCIAL SA V SE BANKEN FORSAKRING HOLDING AKTIEBOLAG
LESOTHO HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V IMPREGLIO SPA
ARAB AFRICAN ENERGY CORP LTD V OLIEPRODUKTEN NEDERLAND NV
SUMAKAN LTD V COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT
UNIDROIT (INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW)
England and Wales--1543-
The development of commercial law through case law is section 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 stifling progress? - 2008 - Arbitration 74(4) November 2008, 429-438(10) .
Considers whether or not the arbitration process for commercial disputes, as set out in the English Arbitration Act 1996, is an impediment to the development of commercial law. Asks to what extent the English courts should continue to play a creative role in developing commercial law. Includes examples of cases drawn from a number of jurisdictions.
ARBITRATION ACT 1996 S69
MARDOF PEACH AND CO LTD V ATTICA SEA CARRIERS CORP OF LIBERIA, THE LACONIA
CANDLER V CRANE CHRISTMAS AND CO
HAMILTON V MENDES
UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES ART 33(3)
B.T.P.TIOXIDE LTD V PIONEER SHIPPING LTD AND ARMADA MARINE SA, THE NEMA
ANTAIOS COMPANIA NAVIERA SA V SALEN REDERIERNA A.B.
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD V ENRON OIL AND GAS INDIA LTD
TRANSFIELD SHIPPING INC V MERCATOR SHIPPING INC (THE ACHILLEAS)
LOBB V AINTREE
DEMCO INVESTMENTS AND COMMERCIAL SA V SE BANKEN FORSAKRING HOLDING AKTIEBOLAG
LESOTHO HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V IMPREGLIO SPA
ARAB AFRICAN ENERGY CORP LTD V OLIEPRODUKTEN NEDERLAND NV
SUMAKAN LTD V COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT
UNIDROIT (INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE UNIFICATION OF PRIVATE LAW)
England and Wales--1543-