International arbitration

Assisting clients to resolve disputes through arbitration

We have the experience and expertise to successfully represent you in arbitrating your dispute.

Our goal is to achieve a quick, just, and cost-effective resolution of your dispute, based on an effective arbitration strategy that also takes your business's broader commercial considerations into account.

We act for clients with business and commercial interests in various, sometimes, multiple jurisdictions. Handling disputes with an international dimension is one of our key strengths.

We provide clear, straightforward, and direct advice to put forward your strongest claim or defence.

Our lawyers have experience representing clients in arbitrations held under the main institutional rules, such as LCIA, ICC, HKIAC and SIAC. We represent clients in arbitrations seated in London as well as overseas, including at the major arbitral seats.

Where required we can obtain appropriate court orders, including for injunctions or preserving evidence or assets pending the arbitration’s outcome. Likewise, we can represent you in enforcing the arbitration award or setting it aside/resisting enforcement.

A wealth of experience

We have substantial expertise in connection with disputes concerning other jurisdictions, in particular India, Singapore, and the United States. Our approach draws on a depth and breadth of experience gained from successfully dealing with such disputes.

We are experienced in acting for overseas clients with arbitrations seated in London, or for UK clients engaged in arbitrations seated overseas.

Litigation funding

At MGB, we have strong connections with the key players in the litigation funding industry. Subject to the merits of the case, the economics (damages to costs ratio) and the availability of “after the event” insurance we can help you obtain funding for your case. Our approach is to work constructively with litigation funders to assist individuals and businesses finance their cases.

Litigation funding is now part of the international arbitration landscape and a mainstream method for even large corporations and listed companies to fund their cases, and so keep legal costs off their balance sheet.

Litigation funding is widely available through a variety of providers operating in the sector, for both larger cases and smaller cases, and in a wide variety of commercial and other disputes.

Please contact Ian Baker or Amarjit Singh for further information.

Notable Cases

A v M

Summary

We acted for a Singapore-registered company telecommunications company (A) that had entered into a telecommunications services agreement with an African telecommunications operator (M) in July 2020. A mere six months later, the African operator purported to terminate the agreement, alleging our client had procured the agreement through fraud and corruption.

M provided just two weeks’ notice before the purported termination, whereupon A instructed us to assist with resolving the dispute.

The agreement contained a dispute resolution clause providing for 30 days’ negotiations, and if negotiations failed, for parties to proceed to arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (‘ICC Arbitration’).

However, given the shortness of time, our client was concerned to seek an injunction prohibiting M from terminating the agreement. If the agreement was terminated, our client also stood to lose the hardware and software they had installed at M’s site.

Given the client’s circumstances, we advised it to seek an injunction preventing M from terminating the agreement before the courts in the country where M was based, and thereafter to seek a negotiated settlement of the dispute with M.

Our client was successful in obtaining that injunction and proceeded with negotiations with M, thus achieving what was the most cost-effective solution available to it.

NHK v P

Summary

We acted for a Hong Kong company in a Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) arbitration under the 2018 HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules. Our client’s claim was against a leading London law firm, for professional negligence, in a suit worth approximately £180M.

The claim was heard by a three-member tribunal comprising very prominent international arbitrators, including two former UK Court of Appeal judges. The principal issue before the tribunal was whether the retainer agreement made between the law firm’s Chinese office and our client could amount to a “specialty contract” and thus create a twelve-year limitation period, as it had been sealed. The tribunal had to consider (1) whether the seal applied was an official seal in accordance with section 49 of the Companies Act 2006 and its attendant regulations, and (2) whether the form of the contract was such as to comply with the formalities of a Deed to make it a specialty.

The matter went to a Preliminary Issue Arbitration hearing, and the tribunal concluded that the presence of the seal alone, in the absence of other formalities manifesting a clear intention of the parties to enter into a Deed, was insufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 1 the Law of Property (Misc. Provisions) Act 1989, and thus the contract was a simple contract and not a specialty.

T v H

Summary

We acted for the respondent (H) in an arbitration administered by the LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration) under the 2014 LCIA Rules. The proceedings were before a sole arbitrator at a hearing lasting three days.

The claimant (T) alleged H had breached the joint venture between the parties and sought damages for the alleged repudiatory breach. Under the joint venture, T obtained a shareholding in H for which T claimed dividends and sought an order that H buy out the shareholding.

Our client provided a strong and very detailed defence and also brought a counterclaim against T, which also formed the basis for a set-off defence.

We successfully represented H in defending the T’s claim, with our client being awarded costs.

B v D

Summary

We advised an Indian company (B) in its dispute with a Singapore subsidiary of a Dutch company (D). The dispute arose from our client’s sale of its majority shareholding in a business situated in an African state that is involved in the production and export of phosphate fertilisers.

The claim against our client was for a sum in excess of USD17 million for alleged breach of contract, misrepresentation and conspiracy to injure. The claimant also sought additional damages to be assessed and indemnification for any losses suffered in connection with legal proceedings involving the African business, including proceedings before the Singapore court.

The claim was to be resolved by arbitration before a three-member tribunal, seated in London and administered by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) under its Rules.