In the aftermath of Brexit, which has made the enforcement of civil and commercial courts judgments, from the European Union (‟EU”) (and France, in particular) to the United Kingdom (‟UK”), and vice versa, much more difficult and opaque, the option to resolve disputes by way of arbitration has become more appealing. Indeed, as explained in our article ‟Alternative dispute resolution in the creative industries”, arbitral awards are recognised and enforced by the Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards 1958 (the ‟New York convention”), a convention to which both France and the UK are parties of, and which remains unaffected by Brexit. It is therefore now easier to enforce arbitral awards from France to the UK, and vice versa, than to enforce civil and commercial courts judgments from France to the UK, and vice versa. Let's check who has the upper hand, between France and the UK, by checking each country's key features in their respective arbitration systems. In other words, which jurisdiction is best, to resolve disputes by way of arbitration?
- Loot boxes in video games: self-regulation or legislation, that is the question 30 November 2022
- Penguin Random House’s acquisition of Simon & Schuster blocked on antitrust grounds: the rise – and rise – of interventionism in global M&As 22 November 2022
- Ben & Jerry’s v Unilever: legal challenge based on the acquisition agreement after disagreement on Israel 9 November 2022