Boutique by Design - International by Instinct
Managing, quantifying, and resolving disputes in infrastructure, construction, and energy projects requires respect, a nuanced appreciation of differing perspectives, and the kind of experience that comes only from advising all project participants across a wide range of developments. We understand the sectors: renewables, petrochemical, offshore oil and gas, desalination plants, pipelines, nuclear, rail and marine infrastructure, and smart‑city projects.
We support Clients through every stage of a dispute. Our work spans full strategic assessment of options and comprehensive guidance on procedural matters, including the constitution of arbitral tribunals, jurisdictional challenges, multi‑party and multi‑contract arbitrations, the involvement of non‑signatory parties, consolidation of proceedings, and compliance with pre‑arbitral requirements. Our expertise extends to the representation of State‑owned entities, Sovereign Wealth Funds, owners, developers, and contractors.
In our experience, successful project counsel in international infrastructure, construction, and energy projects requires deep expertise in EPC, FIDIC, LOGIC and the full spectrum of issues that arise, including contractual audits of cost‑reimbursable change orders, NCRs, testing and commissioning, and taking‑over.
The US Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the legal regime governing non-signatories to arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. In particular, the Court is now asked to resolve whether state law principles of equitable estoppel apply to a claim to extend an arbitration agreement, or whether “federal common law” derived from a […]
Apportionment of liability amongst participants in an unincorporated joint venture is complex. Such complexity is increased when one participant is in dispute with the joint venture and the absence of arbitration joinder means that there are two arbitrations. This gives rise to questions of the boundary of jurisdiction of each Tribunal and to questions about […]
Arbitral awards are rarely set aside. In DWL v DWM,[1] the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to set-aside an arbitral award for excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. Eminent judges have been clear “there is a difference between, on the one hand, a party having no opportunity to address a point or […]
In JKD and anor v IKC,[1] the English High Court dismissed a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an arbitral Order refusing to restrain a call on a bond. This is another important case because it reinforces the thinking that section 68 challenges apply only to Awards (not arbitral Orders) and […]
In DSS v DST,[1] the Singapore High Court found that an award, where 108 out of the 211 paragraphs were wholesale or substantial reproductions of excerpts from a related award, was not rendered in breach of natural justice. The Claimant said that the reproductions were not limited to reciting of uncontroversial procedural matters but “extend […]
In TTSJV W.L.L and others v BapCo Refining B.S.C (TTSJV),[1] the English High Court dismissed an application for an injunction against a bond call. Applications to restrain bond calls are difficult, given the high threshold. London has reaffirmed the position that a call on an ‘on-demand’ bond can only be restrained in cases of fraud […]
