June 2013 – Page 14 – Current Awareness

AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC – WLR Daily

Posted June 18th, 2013 in appeals, arbitration, foreign jurisdictions, injunctions, law reports, Supreme Court by sally

AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] WLR (D) 232

“The English court had a long-standing and well-established jurisdiction to grant an injunction restraining the commencement or continuation of foreign proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration clause, even when neither party had commenced, nor intended to commence, arbitration proceedings in the agreed forum. The Arbitration Act 1996 did not affect the court’s power under that jurisdiction or under s 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981.”

WLR Daily, 12th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2); Lauchlanv Same – WLR Daily

Posted June 18th, 2013 in cautions, human rights, judges, law reports, Scotland, Supreme Court, time limits, trials by sally

O’Neill v HM Advocate (No 2); Lauchlanv Same [2013] UKSC 36; [2013] WLR (D) 231

“The right to a trial within a reasonable time under article 6.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was a separate right from the right to a fair trial under that article. Consequently the time when a person was ‘charged’ with an offence for the purposes of time starting to run under the reasonable time guarantee might be different from the time when he should have had access to a lawyer for the purposes of ensuring a fair trial under article 6.1 read with article 6.3(c).”

WLR Daily, 13th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Sperindeo – WLR Daily

Posted June 18th, 2013 in EC law, enforcement, jurisdiction, law reports by sally

Goldbet Sportwetten GmbH v Sperindeo (Case C-144/12); [2013] WLR (D) 230

“Pursuant to article 6 of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, read in conjunction with article 17, a statement of opposition to a European order for payment that did not contain any challenge to the jurisdiction of the court of the member state of origin did not constitute ‘the entering of an appearance’ within the meaning of article 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the fact that the defendant had, in the statement of opposition lodged, put forward arguments relating to the substance of the case was irrelevant.”

WLR Daily, 13th June 2013

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Will-writers face jail as new code of practice scheme goes live – Legal Futures

Posted June 18th, 2013 in codes of practice, consumer protection, drafting, news, wills by sally

“Members of the Institute of Professional Willwriters (IPW) who fail to comply with its code of practice face fines or even imprisonment, as a new UK-wide scheme to strengthen self-regulation by setting standards for such codes goes live.”