Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the shipping industry and led to many disputes. However, owing to the prevalence of arbitration in resolving shipping disputes, and the time taken for cases to progress through the courts, there have been few reported cases detailing the pandemic s impact on the industry. In January 2021 the Admiralty Court handed down one of the first judgments dealing with this matter in
P&O Princess Cruises International Ltd v The Demise Charterers of the Vessel Columbus ([2021] EWHC 113 (Admlty)).
Facts
Two cruise ships, the Columbus and the Vasco da Gama (the vessels), formed part of the Cruise and Maritime Voyages (CMV) fleet and were demise chartered to single purpose companies within the CMV Group (Lyric Cruise Ltd and Mythic Cruise Ltd, respectively).
On 21 January 2021 a new royal decree was published in the
Official Gazette which has temporarily extended occupational doctors role in combating the COVID-19 pandemic in the workplace. Occupational doctors will be contact tracers in the workplace and in this context have been given the authority to:
identify high-risk contacts in the company;
issue a quarantine certificate for these workers; and
refer certain workers to be tested or to carry out the test themselves if they consider such action to be more appropriate.
This does not mean that employers can now have their workers tested on a large scale and systematically. Testing can happen only when the occupational doctor decides so and only for well-defined categories of worker (eg, high-risk contacts or when the occupational doctor deems testing necessary to combat an imminent outbreak in the company or for workers who must make a business trip abroad for which a negative test is required).
Introduction
Corruption allegations have blossomed as an area of interest in international arbitration since at least 2006, when an International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes tribunal found that a claimant s conduct in procuring an investment contract through bribery was sufficient as a matter of law and international public policy to render any claim under that contract unsustainable (World Duty Free versus Kenya). Since then, numerous other published awards have shown that states are increasingly relying on allegations of corruption to defend treaty and commercial claims. Despite this trend, no established approach exists for the standard of proof that applies to such allegations. However, recent awards, such as that rendered in Vale versus BSG Resources Limited, show that while corruption is always a serious accusation, the standard of proof applicable in arbitration should be no higher than the standard required in other civil cases.
The Northern District of Illinois recently declined to stay an action for declaratory relief relating to an insurance coverage dispute arising out of the ongoing <i>Clearview</i> litigation. The court held that the determination of whether an insurance policy applied did not require the resolution of facts relating to the policyholder's alleged violations of Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act.
Introduction
The concept of a core investment company (CIC) was first introduced by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in 2010. While, at that time, the RBI clarified that companies which invest in shares of other companies, even for the purpose of holding a stake in such company, should be regarded as carrying on the business of a non-banking financial institution, it specifically acknowledged that such class of non-banking financial institution should be afforded differential treatment. This led to the introduction of a differentiated framework for CICs – the main points of difference being the substitution of the capital to risk-weighted assets ratio (as applicable to non-banking financial companies (NBFCs)) with different capital requirements and an exemption from the rules on investment and credit concentration.