ICC Annual Arbitration & ADR Conference | 23, 24 & 25.06.2021

Join the ICC United Kingdom and specially invited guest speakers for the ICC Annual Arbitration & ADR Conference: Connecting the World of International Arbitration & ADR taking place on 23rd - 25th June 2021.

Hosted virtually via a new events platform, the three-day conference will not only bring leading practitioners from across the globe to discuss the latest developments in international arbitration & ADR but also, allow attendees to network, have meetings and personalise their agendas.

7 webinars | 4 interactive roundtables | 3 days

Platform: Swapcard

Wednesday 23rd June

WEBINAR 01 

Update from ICC Court of International Arbitration

09:00 - 09:05 | WELCOME FROM CHAIR

• Ania Farren, Partner, Omnia & Chair, ICC Arbitration & ADR Committee

09:05 - 09:10 | WELCOME REMARKS

Insights from ICC' relationship with the corporate community

• Harry Matovu QC, Barrister and Queen’s Counsel, Brick Court Chambers and ICC United Kingdom Board Member

09:10 - 09:40 | KEYNOTE

Interview with Alexis Mourre, President, ICC Court of International Arbitration

• Interview conducted by Guy Pendell, Partner, CMS & Vice-Chair, ICC Arbitration & ADR Committee

- Insights into the court including latest on awards & statistics

- Reflections on his tenure

- Hopes for the future and thoughts on legacy

09:40 - 10:00 | PANEL DISCUSSION

ICC Rules - 6 Months In

- How are the 2021 revisions of the ICC Rules working in practice?

- Are they enhancing transparency?

• Emily Monastiriotis, Partner, UK Head of Dispute Resolution at Simmons & Simmons
• Sebastien Pepin, Counsel, ICC Court of International Arbitration

10:00 - 10:15 | Q & A

10:15 | CLOSE

-------------------------------

WEBINAR 02 

Practicalities of Alternative Dispute Resolution

12:00 - 12:05 | WELCOME REMARKS

• Brandon Malone, Solicitor Advocate, Brandon Malone & Company and ICC Arbitration & ADR Committee Member

12:05 - 12:45 | PANEL DISCUSSION

Med-Arb: The best of both worlds or an unnecessary intermediary?

Med-arb is the melding of two well-established processes for conflict resolution into one hybrid process. When used in its truest form, mediation and arbitration are used in conjunction with one another and the same third-party neutral plays the role of both mediator and arbitrator.  Med-Arb was a topic discussed at some length shortly before Covid 19 hit the world by storm.

During this session our panellists will investigate by way of a debate:

• Is med-arb increasing in popularity and is there are regional or cultural difference in uptake?
• When used effectively, could med-arb serve as a solution to some of the efficiency concerns expressed in the 2019 QMUL-Pinsent Masons Survey?
• What are the potential challenges of med-arb? Does it make commercial sense to have the same neutral perform both functions and are there any legal obstacles? Could the power and leverage of a neutral arbiter lead to an unfair advantage in coercing a settlement? Are contractually imposed requirements to attempt to settle amicably more harmful than good?
• Does "mediation with arbitration" meet the same needs as med-arb? Does a separate mediation process answer some of the challenges of med-arb? Does mediation really need to be contractually imposed?
• What are the questions that conflict professionals should explore with their clients when med-arb is considered as a process choice for resolving a specific dispute? And when should conflict professionals consider a separate mediation process?

SPEAKERS:

• Hannah Ambrose, Senior Associate, HSF
• Clea Bigelow-Nuttall, Senior Associate, Pinsent Masons
• Mark Morril, Independent Arbitrator & Mediator

• TIONG Teck Wee, Partner, WongPartnership LLP

12:45 - 13:00 | Q & A

13:00 | Q & A

-------------------------------

15:00 - 16:00 | INTERACTIVE ROUNDTABLES

Each led by a single moderator, these sessions are limited in size and are designed to be highly interactive with attendee videos on to maximise networking, debate and audience participation.

Roundtable 1

• Climate Change related disputes and Arbitration & ADR

MODERATOR: Wendy Miles QC, Twenty Essex 

Roundtable 2

• Vaccine related disputes
  

Roundtable 3

• Non-UK participation in the Lugano Convention. Is this an opportunity for arbitration?
  

Roundtable 4

• TBC

MODERATOR: OPUS 2

*Please note: Roundtables are limited to a maximum of 30 people (spaces are allocated on a first come first serves basis)

--------------------------------

Thursday 24^th June

WEBINAR 03

Evidence in International Arbitration

09:00 - 09:05 | WELCOME REMARKS

• Iain Quirk QC, Essex Court Chambers & Vice Chair, ICC Arbitration & ADR Committeeee

09:05 - 09:45 | SESSION

Reform of Witness Statement Evidence in International Arbitration – Evolution or Revolution?

This session is a comparative analysis of how various jurisdictions (for example, institutions and the arbitral community at have in recent years become increasingly critical of current common practice with regards to the preparation and drafting of witness statements

These initiatives raise several important issues, to be addressed in turn.

1. Is the cultural divide between civil lawyers and those with a common law background narrowing when it comes to the purpose and preparation of fact witness testimony in international arbitration, and if so, what might be the consequences?
2. Do national court initiatives – such as the UK’s recent CPR reform relating to witness statements – have any relevance to the practice of international arbitration? If so, do such initiatives risk creating a new cultural divide between English arbitration practitioners with a court background and the rest of the world?
3. Are some of these initiatives unnecessarily obtrusive on the witness preparation process?

The speakers will conclude by looking forward 10 years to predict how best practice on witness statement preparation might look in 2030. Where do we go from here? How this will influence arbitration going forward. Change seems inevitable – the real question is whether we are looking at an evolution or revolution.

SPEAKERS:

• Charlie Caher, Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
• Jeremy Glover, Partner, Fenwick Elliott LLP

09:45 - 10:00 | Q & A

10:00 | CLOSE

-------------------------------

WEBINAR 04

Evidence in International Arbitration - YAF Workshop

12:00 - 12:05 | WELCOME REMARKS

• Naomi Briercliffe & Alina Sartogo, ICC YAF Representatives

12:05 - 12:45 | PANEL DISCUSSION

Dealing with Expertise: The Opportunities and Challenges of Expert Witnesses in International Arbitration

Using expert evidence and cross-examining in arbitrations in multiple jurisdictions.

The session will cover:

• Benefits and challenges of working with experts in large arbitrations
• Getting the best out of an expert while maintaining their independence
• Views from the expert witness - tips from someone who is frequently cross-examined
• How expert evidence is best used and tips on cross-examination of experts
• Working as junior counsel, leveraging experts’ abilities to help you get to grips with a case, preparing cross-examination of experts and delivering your own cross

SPEAKERS:

• Ben Hornan, Partner, Hogan Lovells
• Nigel Tozzi QC, Barrister & Arbitrator, 4 Pump Court
• Liz Perks, Partner, Haberman Ilett

12:45 - 13:00 | Q & A

13:00 | CLOSE

--------------------------------

WEBINAR 05 

Enforcement of Awards

16:30 - 16:35 | WELCOME REMARKS

• Milo Molfa, Partner, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP  & ICC Arbitration & ADR Committee Member

16:35 - 17:15 | PANEL DISCUSSION

Introduction to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Offshore jurisdictions (BVI, Cayman, Jersey and Guernsey, Switzerland)

• Applicable domestic legislative framework for enforcement
• International conventions/agreements
• Practice and procedure (including interim remedies)
• Scope for challenge, refusal or review
• Proposals for reform

MODERATOR:

• Richard Bamforth, Partner and Head of Arbitration, CMS

SPEAKERS:

• Christian Hay, Managing Partner, Collas Crill LLP
• Domitille Baizeau, Partner, Lalive
• Katie Pearson, Partner, Harneys

17:15 - 17:30 | Q & A

17:30 | CLOSE

--------------------------------

WEBINAR 06

Updates from the ICC Network

11:00 - 12:00 | ICC SINGAPORE

Singapore as the preferred seat: A blip or an unstoppable force, and how should young arbitration practitioners interpret the data?

One of the key findings of the 2021 White & Case and Queen Mary University International Arbitration Survey is that Singapore has become the joint-top preferred seat in the world for international arbitrations, alongside London. This marks a remarkable ascendancy for the small nation-state which only begun positioning itself as an arbitration hub 30 years ago with the establishment of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre in 1991.

This session covers:

• The rise of Singapore as a preferred seat and the reasons and factors for its success;
• Whether Singapore has what it takes and can maintain its ranking amidst fierce competition from seats around the world, or whether Singapore can even surpass London as the undisputed preferred seat in the world;
• The implications of Singapore and Hong Kong (which also gained popularity compared to its 2018 ranking) as a preferred seat for businesses, law firms and lawyers in general; and
• Having regard to where arbitrations are being seated, what should young arbitration practitioners, barristers and solicitors alike, take into consideration when deciding how they would like to develop their practice
• What can London learn from Singapore going forward? 

MODERATOR: Guy Pendell, Partner, CMS & Vice-Chair, ICC Arbitration & ADR Committee

SPEAKERS: 

• Philippa Charles, Partner and Head of International Arbitration, Stewarts
• Abraham Vergis SC, Managing Director, Providence Law LLC
• Darius Chan, Fountain Court Chambers / Breakpoint LLC
• Jelita Pandjaitan, Partner, Asia Head of Dispute Resolution, Singapore
  Linklaters LLP
• Koh Swee Yen, WongPartnership LLP

--------------------------------

WEBINAR 07

14:00 - 15:00 | ICC BRAZIL

Increasing participation of Brazilian public entities in arbitration: new player, same game?

In October 2017, the ICC inaugurated a Case Management Office in Brazil. Arguably a consequence of such inauguration, in 2020, 150 Brazilian parties were involved in ICC cases, leading Brazil to second place overall. Amongst the ICC cases filed in Brazil to this date, 25% involve at least one Brazilian public entity. In total, 38 different Brazilian public entities were involved in cases managed by the ICC Case Management Office in Brazil. These numbers are intertwined with some legislative changes in the Brazilian landscape. In 2015, the Brazilian Arbitration Act was amended to make clear that Brazilian public entities are allowed to submit their conflicts to arbitration. Last month, a new federal Act regarding contracts with public entities was enacted, reinforcing the possibility to submit the related controversies to arbitration. These circumstances raise a number of questions, that will be addressed in this session.

In particular, this session will cover:

• Is it correct to consider that Brazilian legislation regarding public entities is arbitration friendly at this juncture? Are there any remaining concerns after the legislative changes that occurred in 2015 and in 2021?
• How often do public entities choose arbitration instead of state courts? What sorts of controversies public entities usually submit to arbitration? Does the international character of the contract play a role in this?
• Are there any differences in terms of procedure and practice in cases involving public entities in comparison to cases involving private entities? Do public advocates already feel comfortable in the arbitration environment?
• According to the Brazilian Arbitration Act, arbitration proceedings must respect the “principle of publicity”. The same rule is repeated in the recent federal Act regarding contracts with public entities. What is exactly the meaning of such provisions? Moreover, who is responsible for rendering effectively the “principle of publicity”: the institution, the arbitrators or the public entity itself?
• What about the enforcement of awards rendered against public entities? To what extent, if any, enforcing a decision against a public entity is different from enforcing a decision against a private entity?
• What has been the overall reaction to decisions rendered in cases involving public entities? In what circumstances do public entities consider challenging arbitral awards before state courts? Does the scrutiny provided by the ICC rules reduce the chance of challenging arbitration awards from the public entities’ perspective?

MODERATOR:

• Cristiano Zanetti, Vice President of the ICC Brazilian Committee for Arbitration and Mediation

SPEAKERS: 

• Artur Watt, Brazilian Federal Attorney
• Cesar Augusto Guimarães Pereira, International Arbitrator Justen, Pereira, Oliveira & Talamini
• Maria Claudia Procopiak, International Arbitrator, Procopiak Arbitration

---------------------------

In association with: