Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREA Cour de cassation decision of 22 March 2023 sheds light on the firm stance taken by French courts with respect to the scope of arbitral institutions’ civil liability.
In Kraydon v. ICC, the losing party to concluded arbitration proceedings took a rather uncommon approach in initiating a lawsuit against the arbitration center (the ICC) for certain procedural decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, on the basis that the ICC had appointed the tribunal.Declining to quash the judgment of the Paris Court of appeal and thus hold the ICC liable, the French highest court made a clear distinction between the jurisdictional function of an arbitral tribunal and the organisational function of an arbitral institution. In affirming that there is no equivalence between liability-incurring acts by arbitrators and liability-incurring acts by arbitral institutions, it is likely the court sought to quell any volition from parties to challenge unfavorable arbitration results and seek compensation through the prism of a lawsuit against the arbitration centre, rather than through annulment proceedings.
You can read the analysis by Partner Flore Poloni and Associate Kimberley Bazelais published by Lexis Nexis here.
