Please click here to read the article.

Alison Berridge and Imogen Proud, highlight the points of interest from decisions of the tribunals and Information Commissioner published from June 2018 to September 2018.

Please click here to read the article published in the Freedom of Information Journal.

On 17th May 2018, the Court of the First Instance (CFI), handed down its ruling on anapplication for summary judgment in Taching Petroleum Company, Limited v MeyerAluminium Limited [2018] HKCFI 1074 (Taching Petroleum). The case is a landmark in theuse of private remedies in Hong Kong for breach of competition law.

Click here (pp 46 – 49) to read the full article written by Philip Monaghan, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers; Tim Ward QC, Join Head of Chambers, Monkton Chambers

Tarlochan Lall provides an update on the post-Brexit VAT and customs landscape. Please click here to read the article.

Tarlochan Lall considers the main consequences for VAT.

Tarlochan Lall highlights the issues of interest for those who continue to trade with the EU. Please click here to read the article.

George Peretz QC analyses the trade consequences for both the UK and the EU if the UK leaves the EU with no deal as to the withdrawal agreement, including no transition period.

To read the full article published by Practical Law, please click here.

 

Hart Publishing have published “The UK Constitution after Miller: Brexit and beyond”, edited by Jack Williams and Professors Mark Elliott and Alison Young.

The judgment of the UK Supreme Court in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is of fundamental legal, constitutional and political significance. The Supreme Court’s judgment discussed the relative powers of Parliament and the Government, the relationship between Westminster and the devolved legislatures, and the extent to which the UK’s membership of the EU had changed the UK constitution, both prior to and even after departure. It also provided further evidence of the emerging role of the UK’s Supreme Court as a constitutional court, despite the lack of a codified constitution in the UK.

This edited collection critically evaluates the decision in Miller, providing a detailed analysis of the reasoning in the judgment and its longer-term consequences for the UK constitution through the period of Brexit and beyond. The case is used as a lens through which to evaluate the modern UK constitution and its potential future evolution. Whatever form Brexit may eventually take, the impact that EU membership and the triggering of Brexit has (already) had on the UK’s constitutional settlement is profound. The book will be of great value to anyone interested in the effect of the Miller case and Brexit on the UK’s constitution.

To order, see here.

This article first appeared on Practical Law’s Arbitration Blog which can be found here.

On 18 July 2018 the State of California passed a new law which expressly enables foreign qualified lawyers to appear in international commercial arbitrations in the state. The new legislation, which takes effect from 1 January 2019, provides that members of a “recognized legal profession in a foreign jurisdiction” and who are “admitted or otherwise authorized to practice as attorneys or counselors at law or the equivalent” can provide legal services in an international commercial arbitration or related dispute resolution mechanism if certain conditions are satisfied. This is welcome news to the international arbitration community. Until now, following the decision of the California Supreme Court in Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, PC v Superior Court, there had been strict restrictions on foreign lawyers (and in fact any non-Californian lawyers) in providing arbitration services in California.

Now, the Golden State, recently surpassing the United Kingdom as the fifth largest economy in the world, has opened its doors for business as an international arbitration centre. Senate Bill No. 766 brings California in line with most other major arbitral seats and provides an exciting opportunity for lawyers practising in commercial arbitration. The Working Group tasked with the drafting of the bill (which included members of JAMS, Gibson Dunn, and Arnold & Porter) has now set up a California International Arbitration Council with the aim of promoting the state as a hub for international commercial arbitration.

California’s arbitration market is at present relatively small compared with, say, London, Paris, Geneva, Hong Kong, or Singapore. The relaxation of the law and the obvious impetus within the state to put itself on the map as a dispute resolution centre gives room to grow and develop its own identity as a hub.

California’s economic ranking on the world stage is demonstrative of the diversity of its output but one would expect its tech, aerospace and creative industries in particular to offer the greatest opportunities for growth in California-based arbitration. The state’s major non-NAFTA trading partners are in east Asia (particularly the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea) and it is the leading US state for exports to Europe. With international arbitration within the state now open to foreign lawyers, there is much to be said for trading parties in those jurisdictions to start to look to California for effective dispute resolution.

While Senate Bill No. 766 imposes certain conditions on non-Californian lawyers conducting arbitration in the jurisdiction, they are not unduly restrictive and in fact demonstrate the breadth of disputes which Californian arbitration is apt to resolve. The Golden State may have just unveiled a golden opportunity for international arbitration.

 

Trade remedies are the heavy artillery in a trade war. But will Britain have them in place by the time it leaves Europe?

To read full article please click here.