This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Background The Appeal was filed by SANESSOL, a company that was awarded a public bid for the provision of sanitation services in the City of Mirassol by the Municipality of the city in 2007. In 2012, SANESSOL requested a tariff revision, arguing for the necessity of re-establishing the contractual balance. Pursuant to Municipal Decree No.
on 6 October 2007, which contained an arbitration clause according to which all disputes arising out of or in connection with the licence agreement were to be settled by a sole arbitrator in Geneva. initiated arbitration proceedings against the Republic of South Sudan on 26 July 2018, demanding payments of USD 3 billion. as licensee.
The High Court relied and emphasized on the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Metalform Asia Pte Ltd v Holland Leedon Pte Ltd [2007] 2 SLR(R) 268, AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank [2020] 1 SLR 1158 and BWG v. BWF [2020] 1 SLR 1296. 16) Mobilox at [25]. 17) Mobilox at [40]. . ↑ 17 Mobilox at [40]. ↑ 18 At [18].
Article 36 sets forth the effects of said prohibition: if any mining work is carried out in protected areas, the mining authority may demand its removal and proceed with eviction without additional payment, compensation, or reparation. Accordingly, in May 2011, the Von Humboldt Institute issued Resolution No.
Article 36 sets forth the effects of said prohibition: if any mining work is carried out in protected areas, the mining authority may demand its removal and proceed with eviction without additional payment, compensation, or reparation. Accordingly, in May 2011, the Von Humboldt Institute issued Resolution No.
Professor Daimsis pointed to the 2007 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Dell , where the Supreme Court of Canada enunciated a “ uniquely Canadian ” test for determining when a court should refer jurisdictional questions to a tribunal, first. Follow along and see Kluwer Arbitration Blog’s prior coverage of CanArbWeek here.
Giving attention to the global demand for the inclusion and appointment of women in arbitration, the 2024 Survey attempts to close the gap on information relating to female arbitrators in Africa-connected arbitrations. This move followed the government’s cancellation of the original contract in favour of a Chinese consortium in 2007.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content