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 MOREPartner Neil Newing comments on the Law Commission reviewing the UK Arbitration Act 1996 in CDR Magazine. Neil's comments were published in CDR Magazine, 12 April 2023, and the full article can be found here.
The UK Law Commission, which periodically reviews laws to ensure they are fit for purpose, is undertaking precisely such a review of the Arbitration Act 1996, which has been credited as a key factor in London’s dominance of international arbitration for the past 25 years. The review was announced on 22 September last year, and is currently in a consultation period.
The Commission has declared that it is not considering any amendments to the Act’s existing stance on confidentiality, about which there are no express provisions, but which are implied and can be applied where necessary on a case-by-case basis.
“Under English law, confidentiality is basically a convention,” says Signature Litigation international arbitration partner Neil Newing, who looks back to the early days of arbitration as an intra-industry dispute resolution forum where a third-party neutral – often within the same industry – would decide a dispute quickly and discreetly. “This process has now morphed to take on more similarities to large-scale litigation, albeit in a bigger forum with different people deciding it, but it remains a party-driven process, rather than a state-driven process via court.”
Why then, have there been increasing calls to undermine this confidentiality? An answer lies in the category of investor-state arbitration, since it taps into broader concerns about states, public policy and how public money is being used, as well as supra-national public-interest considerations such as environmental protection where governments potentially could be inhibited from taking the ‘right’ decision for environmental reasons due to fear of being on the receiving end of an adverse award.
Such concerns have fed into new United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) rules on investor-state arbitration, and new International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) provisions requiring publication of all ICSID case filings. “So investor-state arbitration is moving very much towards being public, but you have a clash between investor-state arbitration openness and commercial arbitration being confidential, in England and Wales at least,” says Newing.
Revealing the existence of disputes is potentially another way of at least showing that not everything is taking place via a mysterious and unfair process behind closed doors, but this would require careful consideration as “there are often good reasons parties don’t want the world to know about a dispute; it might affect a pre-existing relationship”, Newing warns.
Newing agrees: “There are arguments to be made each way, but ultimately it’s the right conclusion to leave to the parties in each case to decide whether they want [confidentiality] or not: it is not broken and does not need to be fixed, and parties should be able to decide for themselves.”
