Search

Leniency Programmes have been introduced as a complementary measure in the enforcement of competition law in detecting cartels, on the basis that hard to find evidence will be provided by undertakings coming forward to confess, in exchange for immunity or reduction in fines. The advantages of leniency are deemed to be twofold, since evidence is thereby expected to be given voluntarily, and in turn it would save up the limited resources available to enforcement authorities, by reducing lengthy investigations in search of evidence. Therefore, the widely accepted view by regulators, economists, and lawyers alike is that leniency is by far the most effective method of detecting and deterring anticompetitive activities by undertakings. An 'undertaking' covers any entity engaged in an economic activity that offers goods or services in a given market. In the UK, Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 governs prohibitions that fall within the category of cartels of which price-fixing, market or customer sharing, agreements to restrict production or supply, and bid-rigging are the most serious 'hard-core cartels'. This study evaluates the efficacy of the Leniency Programme in the enforcement of competition law applied in respect of cartel infringements based on cases decided by the UK's principal enforcement authority. Chapter I cases decided and published over a twelve-year period, since the Competition Act 1998 came into force, have been analysed in order to evaluate whether the leniency programme has been an incentive for colluders to apply for leniency. The results indicate that very few leniency applications were submitted voluntarily before an investigation was begun by the enforcement authority. Moreover, the detection rate of Chapter I cases on average has been very low over the twelve-year period, less than 2 cases per year, excluding settlements. The research also shows that contrary to the accepted view that evidence relating to cartels is difficult to find, cartels studied in this thesis have left a trail of both electronic, and other evidence that the authorities were able to seize. Further, the leniency applicants were not always reliable witnesses, and despite leniency, the enforcement authorities had to conduct lengthy investigations, negating the cost saving assertion and taking resources away from ex officio interventions by the authorities. The conclusion drawn from this study is that rather than enhancing detection and deterrence of anticompetitive behaviour by undertakings, the leniency programme overlaps, and in effect, undermines the public enforcement of competition law in the UK.

International commercial arbitration is undertaken for the purpose and in the confidence that an award emanating therefrom is binding, recognizable and enforceable between the parties. Recognition and enforcement give rise to legal issues because while awards may be obtained by private parties or companies, recognition and enforcement depend on the state through its judicial arm, the courts. There might be conflicts between the successful parties’ aspirations and those of the state or the court that must recognize and enforce an award. The procedure is therefore key. This thesis seeks to analyse the rules relevant to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Kuwait and also to evaluate the effectiveness of Kuwait’s recognition and enforcement framework, especially against the backdrop of article V (1) and (2) of the New York Convention. Kuwait derives its laws mainly from Islamic law, Islamic jurisprudence, local customs, international conventions and international law. Kuwaiti’s statutory laws largely meet international standards but with some reservations. In particular, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is largely subjected to Islamic law and principles as arbitral awards must usually be registered in Kuwaiti courts and be validated by judges, who are constitutionally bound to adhere to the supremacy of Islamic law and values. Nevertheless, this study establishes that Kuwaiti laws and practices on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards for the most part have applied the rules and standards stipulated in the New York Convention, albeit restrictively. However, deviations exist between the Arabic text of the New York Convention and the actual text of the Convention. These deviations do not necessarily hamper the effective recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, but in some respects they render a narrower and more restrictive interpretation and application of the Convention in Kuwait.

The subject of the conflict of laws and arbitration in intellectual property rights is a complicated topic to research, because the normal rules of private international law and arbitration can be affected by the special characteristics of patents and trademarks. Some rules of these subjects might need to be reformed and in some cases there are principles that should be created to successfully handle cross-border disputes concerning patents and trademarks. Establishment of a special court with supranational jurisdiction may be required to resolve these types of disputes. Recently, this subject has been given enormous attention around the world. While the academics, legislators and forums in developed states have broadly discussed the subject of conflict of laws and arbitration in intellectual property rights, in Saudi Arabia, it has not been given noticeable attention. This thesis intends to make a significant contribution to Saudi law and provide appropriate approaches on the subject of conflict of laws and arbitration in intellectual property rights. The topics which will be covered in this thesis are the rules of international jurisdiction, the rules of choice of law, the rules for enforcement of foreign judgments and the rules of arbitration. The modification and the enhancement of the rules of private international law and arbitration established in Saudi law will be recommended and the arguments for each suggested approach will be presented.

Arbitral provisional measures are of great importance in protecting the rights of the parties to an arbitration agreement. Arbitration as a dispute mechanism is becoming increasingly powerful due to the ability of tribunals and courts to grant and enforce provisional measures which make the final award meaningful. The importance of provisional measures has increased in recent years as more parties are seeking them, and is likely to grow still more in the coming years. This project examines the problems surrounding arbitral provisional measures in England and Wales; as such problems constitute a threat to current and future arbitration. The thesis aims to identify, analyse and offer solutions to those problems that impede arbitral proceedings. This thesis initially examines the roots and the legislative development of the powers of arbitral tribunals to grant provisional measures and the role of the courts in arbitral proceedings in England. The examination highlights the roots of the problems and demonstrates how the approach towards provisional measures in England has shifted in due course from judicial dominance to arbitral competence, and how the role of the courts has become subsidiary. Further, the analysis highlights the problem of arbitrators in the granting and enforcement of provisional measures across borders, due to the inadequacy of the current Arbitration Act 1996, which provides very limited power to tribunals under its S.38,39 and 48. Additionally, the research aims to demonstrate that arbitral tribunals should be given effective and actual authority to grant arbitral provisional measures in order to comply with the arbitration agreement (party autonomy). Since no dispute mechanism can stand alone as an island, the courts should only become involved in support of the process – subject to the arbitral Acts that provide them with exclusive jurisdiction –where this is necessary in order to avoid conflicting decisions. However, the power of the courts to aid arbitration in granting such measures is limited by Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of the European Union, of which England is a member. In international arbitration, timely application and enforcement of interim measures have a substantial effect on the possibility of the enforcement of a final arbitration award, especially when issues relating to the protection of assets or evidence arise before or during the course of proceedings. Hence the purpose of this project is to provide a brief analysis of the international practice regarding the enforcement of provisional measures in international arbitration.