Publicación de SAINZ

Lithuania: A landmark win for our German client, a leading service provider in the aviation industry belonging to Europe’s largest airline group! After a four-year legal battle involving over 20 court proceedings, including representation before the Lithuanian Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the European Union, our team led by Partner Frank Heemann and Senior Associate Dr. Andrius Juskys effectively ensured the seizure and forced sale of the Nigerian debtor’s Boeing 737-800 aircraft, thereby enforcing our client’s claim.   Frank and Andrius’ legal and pragmatic advice, litigation strategy and skills, coupled with the resilience of the Lithuanian legal system, were instrumental in securing success in this high-stakes case.   Congratulations to Frank, Andrius and the entire team for this outstanding achievement!   https://lnkd.in/dKEFGPBt   #Aviation #Litigation #DisputeResolution #Enforcement #ForcedSale #Auction #bnt #bntAttorneysInCEE #Lithuania

When asked about why he decided to practice international arbitration, ITA Advisory Board Member Emilio González de Castilla del Valle of González de Castilla y Ávila Abogados, S.C. had this to say: "𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘢𝘨𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘔𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘤𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘈𝘍𝘛𝘈 (𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘛𝘌 𝘔𝘌𝘊) 𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘺."

International arbitration is an infamously cosy world where an intense relationship between a law firm and an arbitrator can cause problems. That's what happened in Aiteo Eastern E & P v Shell Western Supply & Trading [2024] EWHC 1993 (Comm). The case arises from two arbitrations (the "Offshore" and "Onshore" arbitrations) involving claims against Aiteo, a Nigerian energy company, by lenders under two facility agreements, which both chose ICC arbitration in London. The relevant lender, represented by Freshfields, nominated Dame Elizabeth Gloster to the Offshore arbitration. Dame Elizabeth is a retired English judge with a formidable reputation. She disclosed that she had been appointed as an arbitrator by Freshfields clients twice in the last two years. That's not unusual. The arbitrators issued a partial award determining, over Aiteo's objection, that they had jurisdiction. They later awarded costs against Aiteo and decided that the Onshore arbitration should be consolidated with the Offshore one. They then ruled that they had jurisdiction over the Onshore claims. Standard stuff, so far. But in November 2023, Dame Elizabeth disclosed that a few weeks earlier she had been instructed by Freshfields to provide an expert opinion on English law in another case. Then, in response to a query by Aiteo about any other Freshfields connections, she admitted that back when she had submitted the disclosure form on her appointment, she hadn't disclosed that a few months earlier she had been called in by Freshfields to give advice to one of its clients. (She attributed this failure to her clerk). What’s more, during the Offshore arbitration, Freshfields had instructed her to give an expert declaration in foreign law proceedings in yet another case. (She said it didn't cross her mind to disclose that. "If I should have done so, I can only apologise”.)  Others may disagree, but I think this was a blazing-hot case for removal. These three disclosures came too late, and we know from Halliburton v Chubb, a case that was constantly being discussed during the relevant period, that a failure to disclose is itself a ground to doubt an arbitrator's impartiality. Aiteo applied to the ICC Court to remove Dame Elizabeth. The ICC Court removed her. Aiteo then went to the Commercial Court to set aside the tribunal's previous decisions. Mr Justice Jacobs decided (i) that he didn't have to follow the ICC Court's removal decision but (ii) the ICC Court was right to remove Dame Elizabeth and (iii) the Onshore jurisdictional award (alone) should be remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration. In the end, Aiteo's only gain will likely be a bit of a delay. It's hard to imagine the two tribunal members who previously ruled against Aiteo turning around and reversing their jurisdictional decision now that a new arbitrator is sitting with them. But we should be grateful for the insight the case brings into the murky realities of an often-secret world.