The development of commercial law through case law is section 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 stifling progress?
Language: English Series: Arbitration ; 74(4) November 2008, 429-438(10)Publication details: 2008Subject(s):- 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-
- MANAGEMENT-DISPUTE AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-DISPUTE MANAGEMENT AND RESOLUTION-ARBITRATION
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L146409 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 146409-1001 |
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.