For parties and counsel to arbitrations alike, it is unfortunate that one dispute may require battles on many battlefields: Disputes about similar or identical factual and/or legal questions may arise under several contractual layers providing for different means of dispute resolution, but forming one commercially uniform project or transaction. In practice, this is common in large construction or industrial projects involving a main contract and several sub-contracts or a framework agreement and several contracts for its implementation as well as guarantees for performance of payments. Frequently, such contracts contain arbitration clauses with different arbitration rules or seats of arbitration. The result is a fragmentation of the dispute.

This is unfortunate for many reasons: First, more than one arbitral institution/tribunal will hear the dispute, creating additional administrative efforts. Second, these administrative efforts coincide with additional costs for the parties. Third, a harmonised dispute strategy must be adopted, possibly impacting the prospects of success that would have existed, had the dispute been brought before only one arbitral institution/tribunal. Fourth, the dispute may yield conflicting decisions.

The Singapore International Arbitration Centre ("SIAC") has recently made a proposal for a mechanism of cross-institutional consolidation of arbitrations that addresses such fragmentation of disputes ("Proposal"). The Proposal is a thought-provoking and noteworthy contribution to the development of international arbitration that deserves further consideration and discussion. Most notably, the Proposal's reception in practice will depend on the right balance between increased efficiency and constraints on party autonomy as will be outlined below.

Currently, many rules of arbitral institutions provide for consolidation of arbitrations. Under the majority of the rules, however, this only applies to arbitrations under the same respective rules. Arbitrations under different rules may mostly not be consolidated (See, however, e.g. Art. 15 of the 2018 VIAC Rules, allowing consolidation under differing rules.). Therefore, only few arbitrations benefit from the status quo of consolidation. For example, Art. 10 of the ICC Rules provides:

"The Court may, at the request of a party, consolidate two or more arbitrations pending under the Rules into a single arbitration […]".

Similarly, Art. 8.1 of the SIAC Rules provides:

"Prior to the constitution of any Tribunal in the arbitrations sought to be consolidated, a party may file an application with the Registrar to consolidate two or more arbitrations pending under these Rules into a single arbitration […]".

The Proposal envisages a consolidation protocol ("Protocol") that arbitral institutions could incorporate into their arbitral rules. Parties would not have to give their express consent to the application of the Protocol. Rather, an arbitration clause referring to institutional rules that have incorporated the Protocol would suffice.

Pursuant to the Proposal, there are two options for the design of the Protocol: First, a new, standalone mechanism for cross-institutional consolidation ("Option 1"). Such mechanism would have to provide rules for the timing of respective applications, the appropriate decision-maker and the criteria applicable to the decision for or against consolidation. The Proposal further envisages a joint committee appointed from members of the concerned institutions. Such committee would be appointed for each application and decide on the consolidation. The joint committee would decide on the appropriate institution(s) which would administer the arbitration alone or jointly.

Second, the Protocol could provide for a mechanism to determine one single institution that would be authorised to decide on any application for cross-institutional consolidation based upon its own rules ("Option 2"). In order to determine such institution, the Protocol would have to set out objective selection criteria.

If the Protocol is adopted, Option 1 seems preferable, despite efficiency constraints from involving another decision-making body: These constraints are unlikely to compare to those of a fragmented dispute. Option 1 is mindful of the multiple arbitration rules that the parties deemed applicable to their project and/or transaction by involving representatives of all such arbitral institutions. It may appeal to parties that the entirety of an economically uniform project and/or transaction receives due consideration and that contractual stipulations are honoured. Appointing a joint committee may thus most reflect the principle of party autonomy and foster arbitration's integrity. While Option 2 appears more efficient on its face, the compromise in efficiency seems well worth pursuing Option 1, giving greatest effect to the parties' will.

Upon consolidation, the joint committee would have to decide on the actual administration of the arbitrations. Once again, there are two options: First, new rules that the parties have not stipulated could be applicable and the arbitral institutions could jointly administer the arbitration under those rules. Second, one set of arbitral rules stipulated by the parties could be applicable and the respective arbitral institution administer the arbitration. It seems preferable for the arbitration to be governed by one set of arbitration rules and be administered by one institution. Such approach mostly reflects party autonomy. Furthermore, the joint administration of an arbitration by a number of arbitral institutions appears impractical and is likely to create unnecessary administrative hurdles. Lastly, parties are even less likely to accept the efficiency constraints of a joint committee, if the final result is an administration of the arbitration by all involved arbitral institutions. The final result would practically contradict the aim of cross-institutional consolidation. Rather, parties are likely to accept such efficiency constraints if the result is a consolidated arbitration that is then administered by one institution.

The success of the Proposal will depend on the proper balance between efficiency and party autonomy: The Proposal is a viable route to address the fragmentation of disputes outlined above. At the same time, however, there is a non-neglectable impact on the parties' autonomy to choose the applicable arbitration rules. Any deliberate decision for or against certain arbitration rules becomes subject to review and, possibly, alteration. Party autonomy thereby transforms from an absolute to a relative concept in international arbitration. Cross-institutional consolidation may certainly increase international arbitration's efficiency. Practice will show, however, if parties are attracted by the increase in efficiency or deterred by the potential impact on their autonomy.

Click here to download PDF.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2018 White & Case LLP

Natalie Lucas is an associate in White & Case's Dispute Resolution group in London. She has a broad practice covering commercial litigation and international arbitration with a particular interest in the Firm's Africa practice. Natalie joined the Firm in 2015 and recently spent six months in the international arbitration team in Singapore. She also gained experience in the Firm’s project finance and contentious and non-contentious construction practices prior to joining the group.

Natalie is involved in a number of pro bono initiatives and received White & Case pro bono awards in 2016 and 2017 for her work advising humanitarian and arts charities in relation to breach of licensing agreements and certain contractual claims.

Nick is an associate in White & Case's Dispute Resolution group based in London. His practice focuses on international arbitration. Nick has experience of acting for clients in the infrastructure and energy sectors. Prior to joining White & Case he also spent six months on secondment to a pharmaceutical company.

Nick has been involved in a number of pro bono projects; he has previously appeared before the UK's Social Security Appeals Tribunal and worked with the Royal British Legion in relation to several Coroner's inquests.

International arbitration has developed significantly during the last 80 years. The number of cross-border commercial contracts and international treaties containing arbitration clauses has exploded in the recent decades, leading to exponential growth in the number of international arbitrations. The increased globalization of world trade and investment has resulted in increasingly harmonized arbitration practices around the world. Many important instruments that support this harmonization and international arbitration in general have been created during the lifetime of the Board of Business Practice. These instruments include the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention") and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the "UNCITRAL Model Law"), to give but a couple of examples. To date, the New York Convention has been ratified by 157 states, and legislation based on the UNCITRAL Model Law has been adopted in a total of 106 jurisdictions in 75 states.

The growing popularity of arbitration is visible in Finland as well. Arbitration has long been the preferred method of resolving commercial disputes in Finland. Established in 1911, the Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (the "FAI") is one of the world's oldest arbitral institutions. Finland also has an active arbitration community with an especially dynamic community of young practitioners.

In light of arbitration's ever expanding role as a means of resolving international disputes, this article discusses certain recent trends in international arbitration. The aim is not to cover all hot topics in arbitration but rather to focus on four that have caught the authors' attention in particular:

Transparency

• Transparency vs. Confidentiality
• Instruments Aimed at Increasing Transparency in Investor-State Arbitration
• Transparency in International Commercial Arbitration

Third-Party Funding

• Development of Third-Party Funding of Arbitration
• Issues of Concern
• Regulation of Third-Party Funding
• Disclosure of Third-Party Funding

Financial Institution Arbitration

• Financial Institutions' Traditional Preference for Litigation
• ICC Commission Report on Financial Institutions and International Arbitration
• Financial Disputes' Increasing Role in Arbitration

Diversity in International Arbitration

• Changing the Paradigm of "Pale, Male, and Stale"
• Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge
• Other Instruments Aimed at Increasing Diversity in International Arbitration

Click here to download the full PDF.

The views expressed in this article are strictly those of the authors and should not be attributed in any way to White & Case LLP.

This article was originally published in the 80 year anniversary book of the Board of Business Practice of the Finnish Chamber of Commerce, October 2017.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
 

Tomorrow, on 1 March 2018, after 579 days of deliberations, the new arbitration rules of the German Institution of Arbitration ("DIS") will enter into force, replacing the previous 1998 DIS Rules. The 2018 DIS Rules include several notable novelties such as the introduction of a new administrative body and provisions on multiparty and multi-contract arbitration. The new DIS Rules will make DIS arbitration more attractive for international users and strengthen Germany's position as a seat for arbitration.

When will the DIS follow the example of other institutions and modernize its arbitration rules? This question of many arbitration practitioners was answered in late 2016 when the DIS started a very efficient reform process, which involved all key players in the German arbitration market and was completed in January of this year. The result is not a complete overhaul of the 1998 DIS Rules, but a balanced update in line with modern standards aimed at more efficiency, transparency and flexibility.

The goal to achieve more efficiency is reflected in new and stricter time limits (e.g. the respondent must now nominate its arbitrator no later than 21 day after the receipt of the request for arbitration and the president must be nominated within 21 days after the co-arbitrators were notified by DIS to do so, in both cases instead of 30 days), new procedural management techniques (e.g. case management conference 21 days after constitution of tribunal) and cost sanctions in the event of a delay. The new regulation concerning cost sanctions in Article 33.2 of the 2018 DIS Rules is similar to Article 28.4 of the 2014 Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration, but phrased in fewer words possibly leaving more discretion to the tribunal.

The main tool to achieve more transparency is a transfer of more administrative competencies to the DIS: The 2018 DIS Rules provide for a new body, the DIS Arbitration Council. This Council is in charge of certain administrative tasks that were handled by DIS tribunals in the past, such as the administration of deposits for fees and expenses (Articles 34 et seq.), decisions on the challenge or removal of arbitrators (Articles 15.4 and 16.2) or the review of the amount in dispute (Article 36.3). This does not mean, however, that the DIS is to turn into a "new ICC", as Secretary General Francesca Mazza, previously Secretary to the ICC Commission on Arbitration, constantly emphasized during the reform process. However, the 2018 DIS Rules enable the DIS to ensure that certain major procedural decisions are rendered according to the same and predictable standards. Moreover, the DIS has a right, but not an obligation to review arbitral awards (Article 39). An ICC-style scrutiny thus will not take place.

Flexibility is a key element of arbitration that arbitration needs to promote in order to be chosen in lieu of state court litigation. The 2018 DIS Rules promote flexibility by inter alia including more open regulations on the number of arbitrators even permitting any odd number and by allowing tribunals to grant ex parte interim relief if the purpose of the interim measure would otherwise be frustrated. Flexibility is also reflected in regulations addressing consolidation, multiparty and multi-contract situations (Article 8 and Articles 17 to 20). The approach to the latter is, however, conservative: Both multi-party and multi-contract arbitration are an option only if all parties have agreed or subsequently agree thereto.

Despite including novel regulations on interim relief, the 2018 DIS Rules do not provide for emergency arbitration, contrary to many other recently reformed arbitral rules. There are two explanations: First, the call for such relief before the constitution of a tribunal was not very loud during the reform process. Second, Germany’s arbitration law, the Tenth Book of the German Code of Civil Procedure, is currently also being updated and may in the future include regulations on emergency arbitration. The DIS wanted to avoid a clash with these unknown future rules.

Thanks to the modernized rules, the DIS is well positioned to compete on par with other arbitration institutions.

Click here to download PDF.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2018 White & Case LLP

Luca Winer is an associate in the disputes section of White & Case.  Her practice focuses on international investment arbitration and commercial litigation. She represents and advises corporations and foreign sovereigns in international disputes, including before arbitral tribunals constituted under the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Luca's experience encompasses litigation in US federal district and appellate courts as well as the DC Superior Court.

Luca has experience representing clients in white collar investigations. She is also active in the firm's pro bono practice, including prisoner rights litigation.

During law school, Luca served as the Editor-in-Chief of University of Michigan Law School's Michigan Journal of International Law, and as the President of Futures Advocates in Training (FAIT). She also represented indigent clients with two Michigan Law School clinics. Luca worked as a law clerk for Bay Area Legal Aid, providing family law services to domestic violence survivors.

The Singapore High Court has set aside a construction adjudicator's determination for breaching the rules of natural justice. The adjudicator applied the wrong standard of proof without hearing submissions on the issue. This unusual case demonstrates the limits of natural justice challenges in the adjudication context.

Decision: WCS Engineering Construction Pte Ltd v Glaziers Engineering Pte Ltd [2018] SGHC 28

Background: SOP Act Adjudication

Adjudication aims to provide contractors with a fast and low-cost route to payment. A summary of the adjudication process under Singapore's Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act ('SOP Act') can be found in one of our earlier alerts, available here.

Facts

Glaziers was a sub-contractor engaged by WCS on a substantial residential construction project.

A payment dispute arose. Glaziers started an adjudication to obtain payment. WCS argued that losses caused by Glaziers' allegedly defective work should be deducted from any payment.

The adjudicator found for Glaziers. He was not satisfied 'beyond reasonable doubt' that WCS's deductions were valid. He did not, however, seek or receive submissions from the parties on whether 'beyond reasonable doubt' was the correct standard of proof.¹

WCS applied to set aside the adjudicator's determination. It argued, among other things, that the adjudicator breached the rules of natural justice by failing to hear the parties on the correct standard of proof.

Decision

The court set aside the adjudicator's determination.

The parties agreed that the adjudicator applied the wrong standard of proof. Had the adjudicator asked, both parties would have said that WCS only needed to show a prima facie entitlement to make the deductions. WCS did not need to prove its case 'beyond reasonable doubt'. The court agreed.

The adjudicator's failure to hear submissions on this issue breached the rules of natural justice. But this in itself was not sufficient to set aside the determination. The court set aside the determination because, in addition, the breach:

• was causally connected with the decision made – the application of the incorrect standard of proof was 'one step on the critical path' to the adjudicator's overall determination; and
• caused WCS actual prejudice – if the correct standard had been applied, the adjudicator's determination could have been different (it did not have to be shown that it would have been different).

Comment

The SOP Act regime aims to provide a robust, speedy and efficient route to payment. To ensure this, set aside is limited to situations where the adjudicator lacks jurisdiction; fails to comply with the SOP Act; or breaches the rules of natural justice. Errors of law or wrong substantive findings do not warrant set aside.

The requirements for set aside on natural justice grounds will rarely be met. An applicant must show:

• a breach of natural justice;
• a causal connection with the determination; and
• actual prejudice.²

Although these requirements were satisfied here, the court gave examples of several similar situations where set aside would not have been granted.³ The court's approach demonstrates the limits of viable natural justice challenges.

The court also emphasised other unusual features of the case. For the adjudicator, the standard of proof was seemingly an 'unknown unknown': he did not know that he did not know the correct standard. Adjudicators do not usually make findings of law without hearing from the parties. Still less do they fail to recognise when they need assistance from the parties.

Although adjudication determinations are rarely set aside, an unsuccessful set aside application can delay payment and lead to additional legal and other costs. Adjudication claimants in particular will therefore wish to minimise the risk of such applications. One practical way to do so is by raising points of potential uncertainty during the adjudication, and ensuring that both parties comment on them. As this case shows, however, the risk of an adjudicator taking into account 'unknown unknowns' can never be ruled out completely.

Click here to download PDF.

¹ As explained at paragraphs 32-34 of the judgment, strictly speaking, neither party in an adjudication has a burden of proof, because neither party needs to prove that its case is true. Rather, each party seeks to persuade the adjudicator to give, or refuse to give, 'temporary finality' to the claimant's claim (an adjudication determination is usually binding unless or until the dispute is determined by a court/tribunal or settled). In this alert, we use the term 'standard of proof' as a shorthand for this approach.
² The 'causal connection' and 'prejudice' requirements are sometimes referred to together as the 'materiality' requirement: see paragraph 68 of the judgment.
³ For example, if: (i) the adjudicator had failed to hear the parties on the standard of proof, but applied the correct standard; (ii) the parties had made conflicting submissions on the standard of proof, and the adjudicator then applied the wrong standard; or (iii) the parties had made no submissions on the standard of proof, the adjudicator identified the wrong standard of proof in his determination, but then in substance applied the correct standard anyway.

Trainee Solicitor Helena Payne contributed to this publication.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2018 White & Case LLP

Ralph is an associate in the International Arbitration and Construction and Engineering practice groups. He has represented clients from a range of sectors in a wide variety of litigation and arbitration proceedings. Ralph has a particular focus on international construction and engineering disputes.

He recently won second prize in the Society of Construction Law's prestigious Hudson essay competition.

Prior to joining White & Case, Ralph worked as the research assistant at a leading barristers' chambers.

Ben is an associate in White & Case's Dispute Resolution group based in London.

He has experience across a range of industries including the infrastructure, transport and energy sectors, and is experienced in large-scale international arbitrations under the principal arbitral rules.

Ben also spent six months working with the Firm's International Arbitration team in Paris, where he gained experience in investment treaty arbitration.  He is fluent in French.

As part of Paris Arbitration Week, White & Case is pleased to invite you to a conference on the topic of: Perspectives on Arbitration in the OHADA Zone.

Speakers

• Narcisse Aka, Secretary General of the OHADA Court of Justice and Arbitration (CCJA)
• Mamadou Gaoussou Diarra, Lawyer of the Mali Bar, Former minister of Mali
• Joachim Bilé-Aka, Lawyer of the Abidjan Bar, Former Bâtonnier of Côte d’Ivoire Bar Association
• Thierry Lauriol, Partner, Jeantet
• Michael Bühler, Partner, Jones Day
• Souley Amadou, Division Manager, Private Sector Operations, Legal Services Department, African Development Bank

Moderators

• Charles Nairac, Partner, White & Case LLP
• Christophe von Krause, Partner, White & Case LLP

Thursday, 12 April 2018
Conference from 5:00 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., followed by a cocktail reception
White & Case, 19 Place Vendôme, 75001 Paris

Follow this link to request an invitation. If you have any questions please contact Reese Onate.

Abdulrahman Alayoni is a Senior Associate in the Law Firm of AlSalloum and AlToaimi, with which White & Case practices in association.

Abdulrahman is a Disputes and Arbitration team member. He has more than 14 years' experience in litigation in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, he has experience in commercial, employment, companies, Trade Marks issues and joint ventures.

Abdulrahman is a qualified lawyer in Saudi Arabia. He speaks both English and Arabic with native fluency, and is able to negotiate and draft legal documents in both languages.

David Gräslund is an associate in our Dispute resolution practice in Stockholm and joined White & Case in 2018.

Prior to joining White & Case, David served as a law clerk at the Patent and Market Court and the Stockholm District Court. He has previously worked as an associate at a Swedish law firm in Stockholm.

Embla Hellgren is an associate in our Dispute Resolution practice in Stockholm and joined White & Case in 2018. Embla focuses on Swedish and international arbitration and litigation proceedings.

Prior to joining White & Case, Embla studied at Stockholm University in Sweden and at The University of Hong Kong in Hong Kong. She was previously a junior trainee with the firm.

Štěpán Krb is a member of the Disputes Practice Group of the Prague office of White & Case, having joined the firm in 2013.

He focuses on insolvency, arbitration, litigation and financial regulatory matters. Within these core areas of his interest and expertise, Štěpán provides legal services to major corporate clients as well as financial institutions.

Singapore's highest court has found that set-off between different construction contracts is not possible in adjudication. Adjudication aims to ensure prompt and efficient payment for contractors. The court concluded that the process should not be delayed by 'cross-construction contract claims'.

Decision: Civil Tech Pte Ltd v Hua Rong Engineering Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 12

Background

For an overview of Singapore's Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act ('SOP Act') and its claims process, please see our earlier Client Alert on the High Court's decision in this case.

Facts

The parties were involved in two construction projects for new stations on Singapore's transport network. The projects were known as 'T211' and 'C933'. Civil Tech Pte Ltd ('CTP') engaged a sub-contractor, Hua Rong Engineering Pte Ltd ('HRE'), for each project under separate contracts.

HRE sought payment from CTP under the T211 contract. CTP agreed that the payment was due, but withheld it to set-off overpayments made to HRE under the C933 contract.

The dispute proceeded to adjudication. The adjudicator ruled in favour of HRE, and held that the SOP Act did not allow CTP to set-off a counterclaim based on another contract. CTP challenged the adjudicator's determination in the High Court, but was unsuccessful. CTP then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issue

The key question was whether an adjudication respondent can assert a claim or set-off under a construction contract other than the contract under which the claimant seeks payment.

Decision

The Court of Appeal dismissed CTP's appeal.

An adjudication respondent is not entitled to withhold payment based on a claim or set-off under another construction contract. The court referred to this as a 'cross-construction contract claim'.¹

The Court reached this conclusion after analysing the purpose, scheme and text of the SOP Act:

• Purpose of the SOP Act:

The SOP Act addresses the problem of delayed payment to contractors. Before the SOP Act was implemented, employers could readily delay payment by asserting set-offs or cross-claims. In many cases, these issues could only be resolved after lengthy and expensive litigation or arbitration. The SOP Act addresses this problem by aiming to create a level playing field, where downstream parties are paid promptly by upstream parties.

• Scheme of the SOP Act:

Under the SOP Act, each construction contract has its own payment framework. This imposes payment deadlines and long-stop dates. Parties could evade this payment framework if they were allowed to withhold payment based on cross-claims or set-offs arising under a different construction contract.

In addition, only downstream parties (i.e., those seeking payment) can start an SOP Act adjudication. An upstream party is only allowed to raise claims in adjudication 'as a shield rather than as a sword'. This precludes cross-construction contract claims. But this does not mean that an employer is left without any remedy at all – it can still bring its claim in arbitration or in court.

• Text of the SOP Act:

The language of the SOP Act envisages that only one contract should be in issue in any adjudication – the contract under which the claimant seeks payment. Requiring the adjudicator to consider claims under multiple construction contracts could involve potentially extensive documentary evidence about other contracts. This would delay the resolution of the payment dispute overall.

Comment

The decision is welcome news for contractors. It emphasises that adjudication aims to offer contractors a swift and efficient route to payment (subject to possible review later by a court or arbitral tribunal). This, in turn, facilitates cash flow from upstream parties to downstream parties in construction projects. Complex and time-consuming cross-claims and set-offs about other construction contracts would undermine these aims. The decision thus makes clear that cross-construction contract claims have no place in Singapore adjudication.

Click here to download PDF.

¹ The decision focuses only on cross-claims and set-offs between construction contracts governed by the SOP Act. It expressly reserves for another day the issue of whether an adjudicator may consider any set-off or cross-claim arising outside the contract under which payment is sought. However, given the Court's reasoning, it would perhaps be surprising if the conclusion were different for set-offs/cross-claims arising under non-SOP Act construction contracts.

This publication is provided for your convenience and does not constitute legal advice. This publication is protected by copyright.
© 2018 White & Case LLP

A Legal Business cover feature charts the success and growth of White & Case in London since 2010. In its 10-page article Legal Business reports how the London office has achieved record-breaking revenue numbers and is on course to meet the growth goals set out in the Firm's 2020 Strategy. The feature includes comments from London-based Executive Committee member Oliver Brettle and London-based partners Melissa Butler, Ian Bagshaw, Jonathan Parry, Patrick Sarch and Stuart Matty, as well as images of partners Mark Clarke, Clare Connellan, Gareth Eagles, Guy Potel and Ingrid York.

Click here to read more (paywall).

Seok Ho "Richard" Kang is an associate within the Litigation Group. His practice focuses on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitrations and antitrust disputes. Richard has also been active in a variety of criminal pro bono matters, including death penalty appeal cases.

Richard’s previous legal experiences include working as an extern at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) Secretariat, where he assisted tribunal secretaries with case management and the rules amendment project.

Prior to law school, Richard served as a surface combat officer in the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) and as an intelligence officer with the Defense Security Command (DSC). As a civilian, Richard worked as a National Assembly Correspondent with the Arirang TV in Seoul.

Global law firm White & Case LLP has advised Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO), a Finnish electricity producer, on the negotiation of a global settlement agreement which ends its arbitration against French nuclear group Areva and German technology group Siemens in relation to the Olkiluoto 3 EPR (OL3 EPR) project in Finland.

The agreement between TVO and the Areva-Siemens consortium ends the arbitration while retaining the main principles of the plant contract (turnkey contract, joint and several liability of the consortium members) and ensuring the human, technical and financial resources needed for the completion of the OL3 EPR project. The agreement includes the payment to TVO of a €450 million settlement indemnity, as well as an incentive payment for a maximum amount of €150 million and a penalty for a maximum amount of €400 million.

White & Case lawyers based in Paris, London, Brussels, Frankfurt and Helsinki advised TVO.

The team in Paris which advised on the negotiation of the settlement agreement was led by partners Céline Domenget-Morin, Andrew McDougall, Nathalie Nègre-Eveillard and Philippe Métais, with support from associates Bruno Pousset, Alann le Guillou, Marie Gicquel and Julien Huet. The Paris team which advised on the arbitration was led by partners Elizabeth Oger-Gross and Kirsten Odynski, with support from associates Philippe Boisvert, Maud Elezam and Elina Aleynikova. The Paris team which advised on the litigation included associates Mathilde Cousteau and Axelle Grillault Laroche and the team which advised on European laws aspects was led by partner Yann Utzschneider, with support from counsel Orion Berg.

The team in London which advised on the negotiation of the settlement agreement was led by partners Phillip Capper, Clare Connellan and Daniel Garton, with support from counsel Chris Duncan and associates Nika Larkimo and Alexandra Doyle. The London team which advised on the arbitration was led by partner Charles Balmain, with support from associates Rebecca Major, Mark Sanders and Ralph Goodchild. The Firm's team in Brussels which advised on European laws aspects was led by partner Mark Powell, with support from local partner Kai Struckmann, counsel Genevra Forwood and associate Marika Harjula. The White & Case team in Frankfurt which advised on German law aspects was led by partners Markus Burianski and Jan-Philipp Hoos. Helsinki based associates Tuuli Timonen and Heidi Blomqvist also advised on the transaction and on the arbitration.

Press contact
For more information please speak to your local media contact.

For the fourth year in a row, White & Case has been ranked the top international arbitration practice in the world by Global Arbitration Review (GAR), which announced White & Case’s top spot at its GAR 100 awards ceremony in Paris on April 12.

White & Case once again took the top spot in the GAR 30, a ranking of the "busiest practices, which is generated from the size and number of the disputes all the firms in the [GAR 100] have argued in the past two years," according to GAR.

GAR selects its GAR 30 firms following a detailed analysis of such metrics as the number of merits hearings and jurisdictional hearings in a two-year period and the amount of money at stake, the number of hours billed to arbitration and the number of pending cases in which a firm’s members have been appointed as arbitrators.

White & Case's roster of more than 180 arbitration practitioners and its large case load, valued at US$144 billion (up from US$124 billion in last year’s GAR 30), were both cited by GAR as factors that helped the firm retain the top slot.

In its ranking report on White & Case, GAR wrote: "Though a lot of work is for sovereigns, there are some niche areas associated with particular offices. In Paris and London, there’s a heavy focus on project and construction work…. Meanwhile, in Mexico City and Washington, DC, areas of special interest are investor-state work and Latin America…. Few would dispute that White & Case is a formidable opponent whatever the type of arbitration…. It's also worth noting that, of the top practices, White & Case is one of the least male-dominated."

Of White & Case's ranking, Paul Friedland (New York), global head of the White & Case International Arbitration Group, said: "Our top ranking in GAR attests to client confidence in our Group. Clients come to us for their highest stakes cases, and a large portion of our work is for repeat clients. We’ve been expanding while keeping our practitioners busy. No reason to see this trend changing in the near future."

GAR cited among White & Case's recent accomplishments the Firm’s establishing jurisdiction for tens of thousands of Italian bond­holders to bring a collective ICSID claim against Argentina (the famous Abaclat case); a US$740 million ICSID win for Canadian mining company Gold Reserve against Venezuela; winning the complete dismissal of a €322 million ICSID claim against Hungary over a lakeside casino resort that never got built; helping a Lebanese-owned company win US$550 million against the Republic of the Congo; and the first dismissal of a treaty claim at ICSID because of corruption (Metal-Tech v Uzbekistan). These ICSID victories represent the fraction of the Group’s cases that can be publicly disclosed.

Victoria is an associate in White & Case's Dispute Resolution group based in London, whose practice focuses on commercial litigation and international arbitration. 

Victoria has acted for clients on a range of complex commercial disputes before the High Court and Court of Appeal, including shareholder disputes, claims for breach of contract, issues relating to directors' duties, employment claims and regulatory investigations, as well proceedings in the First-tier Tax Tribunal and Upper Tribunal of the Tax and Chancery Chamber.  She also has experience of arbitrations under the UNCITRAL, HKIAC and SCC rules, including emergency procedures. 

Victoria is also experienced in advising clients on alternative dispute resolution procedures and assisting with mediations.