Russell on Arbitration 24th Edition

First published in 1849, Russell on Arbitration has been the principal practitioner’s reference on English arbitration for over 150 years. It supplies a clear, practical focus on all stages of the arbitration process, with detailed analysis of the Arbitration Act 1996 and subsequent case law, and in-depth consideration of the role of the English courts in supporting and supervising arbitrations.

As an authority on arbitration, key features of this title include:

• Provides step-by-step guidance through the different stages of the arbitration process, from drafting the arbitration agreement or clause to enforcing and appealing the award
• Gives authoritative guidance on arbitration agreements, from the form and content, to the laws to be a applied and termination of the agreement
• Discusses the different types of tribunal, the qualifications of an arbitrator, the liabilities of arbitrators and how to challenge arbitrators
• Looks at the conduct of a reference to arbitration, including relevant statutory requirements and time limits
• Examines the role of the court before and during the arbitration, as well as after the award
• Contains cross-references to the 1996 Arbitration Act, CPR, and institutional rules of the ICC and the LCIA
• Includes extensive appendices of legislation, CPR, Practice Directions and other material so they are easily available in one source

• The recognition of the Court's inherent supervisory jurisdiction alongside the Arbitration Act 1996 in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk v UST- Kamenogorsk JSC
• The willingness of the English courts to injunct the pursuit of foreign seated arbitrations in certain exceptional cases e.g. Claxton Engineering Services Ltd v TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KTF, Excalibur Ventures LLC v Texas Keystone Inc and Others and Whitworths Ltd v Synergy Food Ingredients & Processing BV
• The recognition of the validity of faith and nationality restrictions on the selection of arbitrators. The decision at first instance suggesting such restrictions were invalid as a result of European anti- discrimination employment laws alarmed the arbitral community, which mobilised international arbitral institutions to appear before the Supreme Court as amcus curiae when the matter was heard. The Supreme Court duly restored order in Hishwani v Jivraj
• The ever expanding body of decisions under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. Despite the often repeated mantra that setting aside or remitting an award under s.68 is a high hurdle, there are a number of successful applications reported each year. Similarly, despite the many statements regarding the finality of arbitral awards, the Courts will refuse to enforce arbitral awards under the New York Convention in occasional cases. Malicorp v Egypt is a recent example of a successful attempt to resist enforcement of an award under s.103 of the 1996 Act
• The continued evolution of arbitration procedure reflected by healthy debate over, for example, the role of third party funding, tribunal secretaries and the utility of the many rules and guidelines available to parties and tribunals alike
• This title also reconsiders the extent to which decisions under earlier arbitration legislation remain relevant