Arbitration

Arbitration

Share

Members of our arbitration group have significant experience working in domestic and international arbitrations as counsel, arbitrators and tribunal secretaries. The group has wide experience acting in arbitrations administered by all major international arbitral institutions (including the AAA/ICDR, DIAC, HKIAC, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, SCC, ICSID, DIS, CEAC) and subject to all major arbitral rules of practice and procedure (including the UNCITRAL, GAFTA and IBA Rules).

When acting as counsel, our members can provide advice to clients involved in an arbitration at both a pre- and post-hearing stage including all necessary court applications and also in the arbitration proceedings. Counsel can advise on enforcing foreign arbitral awards in England and Wales. 

All members of the group are available to serve as arbitrator either as the sole member of a tribunal or as part of a three-member tribunal.   

Our team of independent arbitrators and mediators have a broad and deep experience in international arbitration – both commercial and investment treaty – and in domestic arbitration, as well as significant experience in mediation. They bring to their work as arbitrators and mediators, and other forms of dispute resolution and settlement, experience, judgment, case management skills, common sense, legal knowledge, dedication, cultural diversity and their seasoned personal skills. They are available for arbitrations and mediations in London and globally.

Members of 33 Bedford Row's arbitration group provide training on arbitration internationally and domestically, and are happy to respond to requests to provide support to, and speak at, conferences, seminars, workshops, moots and continuing professional development lectures.

For further information please contact Senior Civil Clerk, Mark Byrne on 0207242 6476 (Direct Line :0207 421 5568) Mobile: : 07985 615 215 / 07931 231 321 email: m.byrne@33bedfordrow.co.uk

  • Track Record: 

1. Claim against a water company relating to ownership of and responsibility for a water pipe.  Decision: Claim succeeded in part, as a section of the pipe constituted a public water mains, with the remainder constituting a private supply pipe.

2. Claim against a surveyor for failing to report substantial cracking in a property and evidence of roof spreading.  Decision: Claim did not succeed, as the evidence did not support a finding that the issues in question were visible at the time of the survey.

3. Complaint against the Solicitors Regulation Authority relating to its decision not to take regulatory action against a solicitor.  Decision: Claim did not succeed, as the Authority had appropriately justified its decision.

4. Claim against a property company for failure to disclose additional planned construction and for problems with the property.  Decision: Claim succeeded in part, resulting in both corrective action and financial compensation.

5. Claim by a school against a water company relating to a corrective bill issued when the when company had not read the school’s water meter for 3 years.  Decision: Claim succeeded and compensation awarded.

6. Claim against a property company for failing to soundproof a property in accordance with regulatory standards.  Decision: Claim succeeded, resulting in both corrective action and financial compensation.

7. Claim by a coffee shop against a water company for damage sustained and lost profit arising from problems with the company’s sewer and subsequent attempts at resolution that impacted the business.  Decision: Claim did not succeed as the company did not act negligently or otherwise wrongfully as required by Supreme Court precedent.

8. Claim against a property company for damage to the homeowner’s possessions as a result of work undertaken in the property.  Decision: Claim succeeded, resulting in financial compensation.

9. Claim by a rail company against a water company relating to charges arising from a significant and sustained leak.  Decision: Claim did not succeed, as the evidence did not support a finding that the water company was or should have been aware of the leak.

10. Claim against a property company for losses incurred due to delay in completion of a property.  Decision: Claim did not succeed, as there was inadequate causal connection between the losses claimed and the failings by the company.

 

 

Arbitration