Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

AAPrIL’s June online seminar: The Law of the Arbitration Agreement – Australasian Perspectives

May 23, 2025/2 Comments/in News/by Michael Douglas
image_pdfimage_print

On Wednesday, 11 June 2025, the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL) will hold its latest instalment of its online Seminar Series, as Timothy Lindsay of Lindsay Francis & Mangan presents on ‘The Law of the Arbitration Agreement – Australasian Perspectives’.

The topic:

Contracts with international arbitration agreements can engage a complex interaction of different laws: the governing law of the contract, the law of the seat, and the law of the arbitration agreement itself. Parties to international commercial contracts usually address the first two of these issues, but are often silent as to the law of the arbitration agreement. A light has recently shone on this well-known issue by the United Kingdom’s Arbitration Act 2025, which includes a new default rule for determining the law of the arbitration agreement, and similar changes to the Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, as well as developing case law in other jurisdictions. How might Australian and New Zealand courts react?

The Chair:

Jack Wass is a barrister admitted to the bar in New Zealand and Victoria. He practisesin civil and commercial litigation, with a focus on cross-border
disputes. He is co-author of the text The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand (LexisNexis, 2020). Jack is New Zealand Vice-President of AAPrIL.

The Presenter:

Timothy Lindsay is a partner and founder of Lindsay Francis & Mangan, a specialist business disputes law firm with offices in Auckland, Singapore and Sydney. He is recognised as a leading litigation and arbitration lawyer. As arbitration counsel, Tim has appeared in international commercial, investor state and public international law arbitrations under all of the major rules. Tim is currently the chair of the arbitration committee for ICC New Zealand, previously a member of the ICC Court of Arbitration, a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration, a member of the ISDA Arbitration Committee, and a drafter of the inaugural AMINZ Arbitration Rules. Tim was previously a partner in the London office of US law firm Dechert LLP, where he led the international arbitration practice.

Details

Date and Time: Wednesday 11 June 2025, 5:00pm to 6:00pm (AEST)*

Online only: Zoom Link

Zoom ID: 839 4662 2158

RSVP: Please register via this link by COB Tuesday 10 June 2025

Anyone is welcome to attend this seminar. There is no cost.

* ACT, NSW, Qld, Tas and Vic; NZ, 7:00pm-8:00pm; NT and SA, 4:30pm-5:30pm; WA, 3:00pm-4:00pm

Tags: choice of law, arbitration, Australia, New Zealand, AAPrIL, Australasian Association of Private International Law
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Michael Douglas https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Michael Douglas2025-05-23 01:31:212025-05-23 07:01:00AAPrIL’s June online seminar: The Law of the Arbitration Agreement – Australasian Perspectives
2 replies
  1. Guangjian Tu says:
    May 31, 2025 at 11:28 am

    I want to register but I can’t do so by the link. Could you help? Thanks

  2. Adrian Diethelm says:
    June 1, 2025 at 8:52 pm

    The link for registration is not working.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Support in cross-border transactions by Adults: Contract law vs capacity law August 12, 2026
  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
Link to: Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Investor–State Arbitration Awards: Lessons from Devas V. India in Australia, The United Kingdom and India Link to: Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Investor–State Arbitration Awards: Lessons from Devas V. India in Australia, The United Kingdom and India Sovereign Immunity and the Enforcement of Investor–State Arbitration Awards:... Link to: Enforceability Denied! When the SICC’s Authority Stopped at India’s Gate Link to: Enforceability Denied! When the SICC’s Authority Stopped at India’s Gate Enforceability Denied! When the SICC’s Authority Stopped at India’s Gat...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top