Tunnel Vision: The English High Court Considers the FIDIC Yellow Book
The English Court considers termination and notice provisions under the FIDIC Yellow Book 1999. How are clause 15.1 notices to correct limited? Do termination events have to be repudiations? Is it fatal to serve notice of termination on the ’wrong’ address? When does the 28-day period under clause 20.1 start to run? Mr Justice Akenhead offers guidance to the industry.
Mind The Gap: Analysis of Cases and Principles Concerning the Ability of ICC Arbitral Tribunals to Enforce Binding DAB Decisions Under the 1999 FIDIC Conditions of Contract
Published in International Arbitration Law Review This article is divided into four parts: Part 1 introduces the dispute resolution mechanism adopted by FIDIC in the 1999 Conditions of Contract and explains the gap that exists in the Conditions if a winning party in DAB proceedings wishes to enforce a binding but not final DAB decision: the contract does not expressly provide a mechanism to enforce a binding DAB decision. Part 2 gives consideration to how different arbitral tribunals and courts have approached this gap. In addition to the published awards and decisions of Singapore that have been the subject of
Enforcement of DAB decisions – The legal justification for the ‘enforcement’ of a ‘binding’ DAB decision under the FIDIC 1999 Red Book
A previous article proposed that difficult questions arose from recent cases on the enforceability of Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) decisions, including the correct basis of the award and the appropriate type of order. This article offers answers to these questions. In the October 2011 edition of CLInt (pp 13–16), this author considered the case law concerning the enforceability of binding DAB decisions and identified, at the conclusion of the article, some of the difficult issues that the cases present. This article explores the answers to three questions (a summary of the answers put forward in this article follows in italics):
Are you in? Or are you out? An analysis of Section 69 of the English Arbitration Act 1996: Appeals on a question of law
Parties should decide early whether to include court jurisdiction for appeals on legal questions in arbitration. Excluding court jurisdiction ensures finality, cost savings, and speed. Including it addresses concerns about arbitrators' legal interpretation abilities. The 1996 Act allows this choice.