«This blawg provides recent news on all sorts of
interesting arbitration decisions nationwide and does so accurately, intelligently, concisely and with a sense of humor and, sometimes, savvy political commentary.
Not exact matches
Earlier this month, a Florida appellate court handed down a
decision in an
interesting nursing home negligence case, requiring the court to determine the validity of an
arbitration contract signed by a deceased resident's daughter.
It has been endorsed with a foreword by the eminent former Court of Appeal Judge, Sir Bernard Rix, whose judgment in FLS v Laker [1999] EWHC B3 (Comm) is still the leading English
decision on «same chambers» conflict of
interest in international
arbitration.
I came across this fairly
interesting legal blog, Domain Name Shame, that tracks WIPO
arbitration decisions in domain name cases.
Rather, if the parties agree to such binding
arbitration, the agreement is either (a) void completely, or (b) enforceable, but only to the extent that the arbitrator's
decision is completely reviewable by the court to determine the best
interests of the child.
This
decision has been appealed and it will be
interesting to see the effects the ruling will have on the enforcement of international
arbitration awards.
Christian Stuerwald and Mick Smith provide brief comments on an
interesting case recently decided by the High Court, in which the High Court confirmed an
arbitration tribunal's
decision that the success fee a claimant pays to his litigation funder is recoverable from the losing defendant in certain circumstances.
While the
decision is being appealed to the Singapore Court of Appeal, it nevertheless presents an
interesting development in Singapore's
arbitration jurisprudence and serves to caution parties in
arbitration to adhere to the 30 - day period in Article 16 (3) of the Model Law if applicable.
All
arbitration decisions involving children must be decided in the child's best
interests.
In light of the fact that an arbitrator's award often sets a precedent for future disputes with a union and its members, our attorneys make an extra effort to ensure that a client's present and future
interests are taken into consideration when making the
decision to take a grievance to
arbitration.
By taking a «direct financial
interest» in the
arbitration, and by taking a measure of control over how the claim is prosecuted and any settlement
decision, the funder becomes a direct party to the
arbitration.
Unlike litigation or
arbitration, the married couple makes
decisions that are in their own best
interest, rather than having an attorney or judge decide on their behalf.