Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Lawyer Monthly has had the pleasure of hearing from Swiss attorney Cecile Ringgenberg, who provides an overview of how wills are shaped in Switzerland and what has changed since the new law came into effect on 1 January 2023.
If a foreign national has his last domicile in Switzerland, the judicial or administrative authorities of this domicile are competent to deal with the inheritance procedure, except regarding his immovable property located outside Switzerland, if the state of location claims exclusive competence. (Lex rei sitae)
(Art. 86 Federal Act on International Private Law)
If a foreign national does not have his last domicile in Switzerland, but at the time of death owns property located in Switzerland, the Swiss judicial or administrative authorities of the place where the property is located are competent to deal with the property to the extent that the competent foreign authorities do not deal with it. This applies to movable property (bank accounts) and immovable property (real estate) located in Switzerland.
If several properties and procedures exist in several countries, the procedure takes place in Switzerland if it was first to open the inheritance procedure.
(Art. 88 Federal Act on International Private Law)
However, even if the Swiss judicial or administrative authorities are not competent to liquidate the inheritance, they are competent to take the necessary provisional measures for the protection of the portion of property located in Switzerland,
(Art. 88 Federal Act on International Private Law) Finally, if the inheritance procedure takes place in a country which, like Switzerland, has ratified the Hague Convention on the conflicts of laws relating the form of testamentary dispositions of 6 October 1961, the Swiss will will be valid in the foreign inheritance procedure at least as to its form.
Bilateral conventions between Switzerland and other countries should be examined in this respect before establishing the bill.
If several properties and procedures exist in several countries, the procedure takes place in Switzerland if it was first to open the inheritance procedure.
In principle, Swiss law is applicable to the Swiss inheritance procedure.
However, the foreign national may pronounce a ‘professio iuris’ in his Swiss will submitting his inheritance to the law of his national state, even if the inheritance procedure takes place in Switzerland. This will avoid the application of the compulsory portion (see below) in the Swiss inheritance procedure, leaving the foreign national free to dispose of his assets to whom he wants, an outcome accepted by the Swiss Federal Court.
(Art. 90 al.2 Federal Act on International Private Law) (Swiss Federal Court Decision, 102 II 136)
Furthermore, the ‘professio iuris’ will avoid the application of several laws to an inheritance if the inheritance procedure takes place in several countries, thus avoiding incoherencies and supplementary costs.
Nevertheless, it must first be determined if the law of the national state concerned accepts a ‘professio iuris’ and under what conditions it is accepted.
(Art. 90 al. 2 Federal Act on International Private Law)
The testator mandates a notary public or another designated official and communicates his will to the notary or the official in the presence of two witnesses. The document thus established is dated and signed by all present and registered in the acts of the notary or the official.
The testator writes his will by hand from the beginning to the end indicating place, year, month and day of the writing, signs it by hand and deposits it at the place indicated by the Cantonal law.
The oral will is an emergency solution taking place in front of two witnesses, if the testator is incapable to proceed with a public or handwritten will in cases such as imminent death, breakdown of communications or epidemy. One of the witnesses writes down the contents and notes the place, year, day and hour and the circumstances of the incapacity, writing to be signed by the other witness. The witnesses deposit the writing without delay at the competent judicial authority.
The oral will loses its validity 14 days after the testator has recovered his capacity and is again able to proceed with a public or handwritten will.
In principle, Swiss law is applicable to the Swiss inheritance procedure.
The content of the will is limited by the compulsory portion of the part of inheritance of close legal heirs.
It may only be eliminated by disinheritance due to grave circumstances (Art. 477 Swiss Civil Code) or if the person entitled to the compulsory part has renounced on his right in a pact of inheritance in the form of a public will.
Art. 512 Swiss Civil Code)
Without disinheritance or renunciation, the testator can only dispose within the available quota and respecting the compulsory portion.
The reduction/elimination forms the main part of the present revision of the Swiss law of inheritance entering into force on 1 January 2023 (see below).
The testator may appoint one or several executors to execute the will and to administer the inheritance by using the same form in which the will was established.
The executor has the same rights and duties as the official inheritance administrator.
The appointment of an executor is especially warranted in large and complex inheritances with an international aspect and legal problems that the heirs may not be able to solve themselves. Also, their inability to reach the unanimous decisions required to administer and finalise the inheritance may be a reason to appoint one or more executors.
(Art 518 and 554 Swiss Civil Code)
The will may be revoked at any time by using the legal form in which it was established.
If a new will replacing the old will is written, it is recommended to expressly revoke the old will in the new will.
(Art. 509 ff. Swiss Civil Code)
The purpose of the revision of the more than 100-year-old Swiss law of inheritance is to enable the law to embrace today’s new forms of life and relationships, such as partnerships outside marriage, serial relationships and patchwork families, following the mounting number of divorces.
(Art. 470-472 Swiss Civil Code)
The revision is mainly concerned with the reduction or elimination of compulsory portions of legal heirs. It will permit to better consider non-married partners – who even under the new law are still not legal heirs – as well as step-children and more. It will also leave more room for charities.
Furthermore, it will allow for a greater part of a family enterprise to be transmitted to the heir willing to take over the enterprise, while hopefully enabling him to respect the now reduced compulsory portions of the other heirs. This may help to avoid the compelled sale of family enterprises in order to permit the lawful partition of the inheritance, as this was often the case up to now.
The newly introduced reductions and eliminations of the compulsory portions are the following:
The descendants formerly had a compulsory share equivalent to three quarters. They now have a compulsory share of one half of their part of the inheritance.
(Old Art. 470 and 471 / New Art. 470 and 471 CCS)
The parents formerly had a compulsory share of one half. They have now no compulsory share at all.
(Old Art. 470 and 471.2 / New Art. 470 and 471 CCS, no longer mentioning parents at all)
Should a spouse decease during the divorce procedure, the surviving spouse will lose his or her compulsory share of one half in the joint inheritance, provided the divorce has been jointly introduced and the spouses have lived separately for at least two years. It is noted that the surviving spouse’s compulsory share of one half otherwise remains untouched.
(New Art. 472 CCS)
[ymal]
The principle is that existing wills stay valid after the new law comes into effect. However, as the new law applies from 1 January 2023, the testator may want to decide if he wants to revoke his existing will and write a new will seizing the opportunity to distribute his assets more freely under the new law.
Also, the existing will may not be clear as if it refers to the then-existing compulsory portion or if it may be replaced by a new revised compulsory portion. Therefore, it is recommended to review the existing will in any case in order to see if it should be retained or replaced by a will under the new law to clarify the situation.
Cecile Ringgenberg, Attorney at Law
Rue Michel-Chauvet 3, 1208 Genève, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 347 52 53
E-Mail: cecile.ringgenberg@ringlaw.ch
Cecile Ringgenberg practices at the Bar of Geneva in Switzerland. She is a doctor of law of Zurich University with several years of practice in international humanitarian law at the ICRC in Geneva and in Africa, as well as three years of practice in the law of international organisations at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Among her achievements are a decision on documentary credit obtained with a colleague at the Federal Tribunal, making jurisprudence (BGer 4C.66/2004 of 01.06.2004), and her successful representation of victims in numerous international investment frauds.
Maxwell Chambers chief executive Ban Jiun Ean expands on the reasons behind Singapore’s explosive ADR growth in this feature.
There are many reasons why parties find Singapore attractive for international ADR work. Here, there is a deep respect for the rule of law, a stable geopolitical climate, a safe business environment and strong transportation links, while being geographically and culturally part of the fastest and largest growing market in the world – located within a six-hour flight of more than half the world’s population.
Other factors that parties have considered in choosing Singapore are the presence of many regional HQs of global MNCs, the deep and varied pool of legal talent available and the ease of doing business. Even factors such as the ease of movement and suitable cuisine for people from all parts of the world have tipped the scales in favour of a decision to arbitrate in Singapore. When parties think of arbitrating in Singapore, it is because of a combination of many factors that encompass the physical environment, the legal and judicial support system, and the presence of good counsel and related services.
For the simple reason that the kind of experience we can provide remains difficult to reproduce elsewhere, even for large companies or law firms. At best, there may be state-of-the-art audio visual equipment and IT capabilities in a conference room or two, but the full suite of offerings in a dedicated hearing centre will likely be missing. This includes soundproof breakout rooms with refreshments and automated locking systems to allow 24-hour access to only authorised individuals, mobile storage within hearing rooms to accommodate document-heavy proceedings, dedicated staff and IT support, privacy and confidentiality, bespoke room layouts to allow ancillary services like transcription and interpretation to operate effectively throughout hearings, and so on.
Proximity to hotels and good transport links are also part of the equation, as well as the availability of good food and coffee. Also, an interesting draw of dedicated centres is the possibility of meeting other arbitrators and arbitration counsel having hearings in the same location – always a pleasant experience for members of a far-flung global community.
The growth has been steady and multifaceted over the years, in some ways exceeding even Asia’s greater economic growth trajectory. Firstly, there has been the increasing maturity of the ADR industry, with both lawyers and clients alike becoming more experienced and sophisticated in using non-court processes for dispute resolution, and companies using ADR clauses by default in more of their contracts and standard forms. This has led to the steady growth of the use of mediation and arbitration as opposed to litigation.
There are many reasons why parties find Singapore attractive for international ADR work.
A second driver has been the shifting of ADR work from outside Asia back into Asia, as the number and quality of Asian neutrals continues to grow and parties become more familiar and comfortable with using a neutral not from the traditional powerhouse jurisdictions. The movement of some of these neutrals from more traditional seats has also contributed to this, with a lot of top ADR practitioners relocating their practice to Asia as a response to the increasing work they have been receiving from the region.
Finally, governments in Asia have also become much more supportive of ADR processes, in no small part due to years of efforts from bodies like UNCITRAL and the many large international arbitral institutions around the world. The Singapore Convention coming into force recently has also helped move the needle in terms of creating awareness among governments about the usefulness of ADR processes in helping to grease the wheels of their economies. As a result of all this, the ADR scene in Asia today, particularly in Singapore, is especially vibrant and deep, with an even brighter future on the horizon.
Without government support, a lot of this growth might possibly have come anyway, but almost certainly at a much slower pace. Government support, whether from the Singapore government or others, has been instrumental in driving change at many levels, whether by passing arbitration and mediation-friendly laws, by helping the courts understand ADR better, by creating specialist bodies like the Singapore International Commercial Court which provide deep support to the ADR processes, or by resourcing various efforts and initiatives that have driven awareness and growth.
Government support has also made large-scale events possible, in terms of making access to a country straightforward and fuss-free, by lending weight in the form of high-profile government officials attending and speaking, and by reaching out to their counterparts in other countries to raise awareness of the event in their respective jurisdictions. The Singapore Convention is a high-profile example of what government support can achieve, where the years of contribution by various bodies from around the world resulted in a groundbreaking international treaty that strengthens the international dispute resolution framework.
Without government support, a lot of this growth might possibly have come anyway, but almost certainly at a much slower pace.
In this example, one major advantage is the ability to shape the nature of the outcome using a negotiated settlement that can cover disputes ranging across multiple jurisdictions. For example, a dispute over a trademark infringement may involve products sold in several countries by both companies. Even if a favourable court judgment is obtained by one side, the effect of enforcing it in each of the many markets concerned will require starting (and for the other side, defending against) legal actions in each of those jurisdictions, potentially relitigating the issue in some places.
A successful settlement agreement, however, can be structured to cover all these markets and jurisdictions simultaneously, saving cost and time and ultimately leading to a better outcome for both sides. There is also, of course, the established advantage of arbitration or mediation where brand damage from the dispute can be reduced as proceedings and even terms of the settlement or award can be kept confidential, whereas court proceedings are public, as are court judgments.
Another advantage is the ability for disputing parties to select an IP specialist to be their neutral, whether as mediator or as arbitrator, which is extremely helpful in complex IP cases. These are just a few of many advantages of using ADR rather than the courts.
It will undoubtedly continue along this trajectory of growth as we see a new generation of lawyers and general counsel begin to increasingly embrace ADR as the approach of choice for dispute resolution. The newfound confidence and maturity of Asian-based dispute resolution institutions contributes in no small part to this, leading to parties increasingly putting their disputes in the hands of local or regional bodies. We expect that the foreseeable future of ADR in Asia will remain bright.
32 Maxwell Road #03-01, Singapore 069115
Tel: +65 6595 9010
Fax: +65 6339 3931
Email: info@maxwellchambers.com
Ban Jiun Ean is the Chief Executive of Maxwell Chambers and has spearheaded its development, helming the company between 2010 and 2016 before leaving to pursue other projects, including authoring several novels and overseeing the development of an arts centre. Since his return to Maxwell Chambers, he has worked to strengthen the firm whether in Singapore or on the world stage.
Maxwell Chambers is a dispute resolution centre centrally located in Singapore. Its purpose-built hearing rooms are equipped with best-in-class hearing facilities and state-of-the-art supporting technology. It also houses arbitral institutions, service providers and legal practitioners under the same roof in Maxwell Chambers Suites. Maxwell strives to be a one-stop shop for clients’ dispute resolution needs.
In this feature we hear from Robert Wynn Jones, partner in Mishcon de Reya’s Fraud Group, who expands on this process and how he and his colleagues bring their expertise to bear in obtaining and keeping freezing injunctions.
Mishcon Fraud Group is a sub-group of Mishcon's wider Litigation Department. It has approximately 60 practitioners, including 12 partners. What distinguishes our group from many others is that the vast majority of the work that we undertake is in fact civil fraud, injunctive and asset tracing type work as opposed to the inverse, where many practitioners undertake general commercial litigation and a small percentage of fraud and injunctive work. We also undertake both claimant and defendant work, which allows both skillsets and know-how to feed off each other.
We have traditionally been instructed in large cross-jurisdictional matters involving large UK-based corporations, overseas-based large corporations or high net worth individuals in control of such corporations. Within those client groupings, we have been and continue to be instructed in classic ‘fraud matters’ where there has been obvious dishonest conduct in commercial dealings, which invariably require injunctive measures – often in multiple jurisdictions – in the form of search orders, freezing injunctions and third-party disclosure orders.
In the last five years or so, the department has been instructed on numerous non-performing loan (NPL) matters on behalf of various international banks, essentially using the same injunctive toolkit to obtain meaningful recoveries for the clients.
Another significant area of work in the last few years has been in the crypto space, where there have been substantial losses on the part of the claimant or the claimant group. In these cases we utilise our injunctive expertise, combining with our investigation colleagues both inside and outside of the firm to identify the wrongdoing, the wrongdoers and the misappropriated crypto or assets obtained utilising those proceeds. Again, we are seeing a real upturn in these types of instructions.
Finally, over the last 15 years or so, we have been instructed on countless misappropriation of confidential information cases, which remain a central pillar of our offering. Again, in these we use our injunctive expertise and in particular search orders and freezing injunctions to secure the misappropriated information and, invariably, the evidence of wrongdoing. The most recent and high-profile example of one of these cases is the widely reported Ocado Group Plc v Project Today Holdings Limited & Others.
In all of the above categories of work, we are also doing work on behalf of defendants.
What distinguishes our group from many others is that the vast majority of the work that we undertake is in fact civil fraud, injunctive and asset tracing type work as opposed to the inverse
Mishcon is predominantly a London-based law firm with offices in Hong Kong and Singapore. The vast majority of the matters on which we are instructed, however, have a multijurisdictional element. From the description of our work above, this is somewhat inevitable. We routinely act on matters involving common law jurisdiction such as Cayman, BVI, Hong Kong, Cyprus and Singapore, among others. In terms of non-common law judications that often feature in our cases, our clients' cases regularly have a footprint in the United States, Switzerland and Luxembourg – again, among others.
To operate and project manage these types of multijurisdictional cases, we have the benefit of the International Fraud Group (IFG), which our department set up approximately 25 years ago and now has 43 firms worldwide. These firms are all experts in the fraud injunctive and asset tracing space in each of those jurisdictions and allow us to operate at the highest level in pursuing these matters. I should note that we do not only use IFG members, but it does form the backbone of our international fraud litigation operation.
In terms of worldwide freezing injunctions (and the vast majority of the freezers we obtain are worldwide freezers due to the nature of the disputes), the two most obvious things they provide are, firstly, the freezing of a respondent's assets – generally up to an amount or above the amount claimed.
While they are called worldwide freezing injunctions, in fact they only freeze up to that amount or have effect up to that amount in the jurisdiction in which they are ordered. It is therefore necessary to obtain further supporting freezing injunctions in the other jurisdictions in which the respondent's assets are identified. In those circumstances we routinely obtain, for example, four, five or six freezing injunctions in other jurisdictions in support of the base worldwide freezing injunction. These are then generally served simultaneously on the respondents in order to lock down the target assets globally as tightly as possible.
The second benefit is worldwide asset disclosure. That provision of the Order, as opposed to the freezing provisions, is not dependent on the jurisdiction in which the Order is actually made. In other words, it does not matter if the worldwide freezing order is made in, for example, England or the Cayman Islands; the worldwide asset disclosure order is exactly that and the respondent has to disclose its assets worldwide.
While they are called worldwide freezing injunctions, in fact they only freeze up to that amount or have effect up to that amount in the jurisdiction in which they are ordered.
There is, of course, a risk of partial non-compliance with the freezing or the asset disclosure provisions. However, in our experience, the Orders provide an extremely powerful launchpad from which to conduct the litigation whereby the majority of the key assets are generally secured and those that may not have been previously known about have been disclosed under the asset disclosure provisions. Substantive breaches of these provisions which are discovered can be – and in our department routinely are – punished by contempt proceedings, often resulting in fines or imprisonment.
A search order is another immensely powerful tool that is hugely beneficial to the client. They can also be obtained in a multijurisdictional context in support of the same proceedings and executed simultaneously for maximum utility (time zones permitting).
It is hard to overstate the litigation advantage in obtaining the client's opponent’s key documents relevant to the proceedings held in hard copy and on computers, phones, cloud networks and any other electronic devices held at the relevant premises by the respondents. On many occasions (but certainly not all) the litigation can be all but over within the first days, weeks, or months after review of the key hard copy and electronic material obtained as a result of executing search orders. This, combined with key assets being simultaneously frozen, is an extremely potent combination in any litigation – and particularly any fraud litigation where the client's opponents have invariably been caught up in dishonest conduct.
Third-party disclosure orders, such as Norwich Pharmacal Orders and similar discovery type orders in the United States under the 1782 regime, can also be extremely beneficial in identifying assets, wrongdoing and further parties involved in the misconduct.
As you can see, the potential benefits to clients of properly obtaining, executing and (equally importantly) keeping these orders cannot be overstated.
The primary risk in obtaining these sorts of injunctions is having your opponent's client's discharge the injunction in its entirety or substantially amend its scope. If the injunction is discharged, that may trigger the cross-undertaking in damages. This cross-undertaking has to be given by the client/applicant when obtaining all of the types of injunctions. Therefore, if the injunction has been made in error and damages have flowed to the respondents, the applicant will generally be liable for those losses – and a review of the case law in this area will show that some of those losses can be extremely large indeed.
The potential benefits to clients of properly obtaining, executing and (equally importantly) keeping these orders cannot be overstated.
It also should be said that, even if the losses are not particularly high and the injunction is substantively discharged, the costs of that discharge will generally be paid by the applicant. So there is clearly a significant risk and, rightly, a very high bar in obtaining these injunctions.
The most common reason for discharge of an injunction ultimately relates to the obligation of full and frank disclosure. This is an extremely high burden placed on the applicant which essentially requires that applicant to explain to the judge all of the good and bad parts of that client's case, and all the good and bad parts (as far as they can know them) of the respondent's case.
These applications are nearly always made ex-parte, or without notice, to the respondent and therefore by definition without the respondent in the Court while the application is being made. Hence the obligation of full and frank disclosure and why the Court requires that rule to be complied with in a very meaningful way. If it is not, the Court could make an order that it would otherwise not have made had it been provided with the full information reasonably available.
The obligation of full and frank disclosure means that the practitioner is in the unusual position of having to undertake what are sometimes extremely challenging and often uncomfortable conversations with the client virtually at the outset of the matter and in preparation of the evidence and application. Understandably, the client/applicant is usually reluctant to explain in significant detail some of the more difficult aspects of its case and past conduct in its commercial dealings with the target/respondent. Equally, the applicant is, particularly in the context of feeling significantly aggrieved by the opponent's conduct, extremely reluctant to highlight the most promising aspects of its opponent's defence.
However, it is precisely these conversations that must be had to allow instructions to be drafted into in the affidavit supporting the injunction applications. Needless to say, extracting these instructions can sometimes cause very uncomfortable moments between lawyer and client. But it is this process that usually provides the best way of ensuring that the injunctions are retained once they are under significant attack by the opponent at the return date and beyond during the inter-partes period of the litigation. Without pushing hard in such conversations, it is unlikely that the client will pass over information that is (partially) detrimental to its position – which can, in turn, put retaining the injunctions at significant risk.
[ymal]
When making the application, all of the written evidence, draft orders, written submissions and oral submissions must be pitched appropriately so as not to overstate the factual position and the legal position, or what is being asked for in the injunctions themselves. This is a constant and complex battle that the applicant team must have with itself so as to not overreach, and again allow the client/applicant to be successful when under attack in inter-partes hearings. By the same token, we must be equally careful not to underreach in conclusions and inferences that can be drawn on the evidence and in the reach of Orders to allow for their maximum utility in all possible circumstances.
The experience of preparing numerous injunctions and going through the processes described above also allows for our department to strenuously test opposing applicants and their legal teams when working on the defence team in these injunctive matters.
In conclusion, it is a highly complex, extremely challenging, but ultimately enjoyable area of law in which to operate.
Robert Wynn Jones, Partner
Mishcon de Reya LLP, Africa House, 70 Kingsway, London WC2B 6AH, UK
Tel: +44 02033 217443 | Mob: +44 07525 392169
Fax: +44 02037 611856
E: robert.wynnjones@mishcon.com
Robert Wynn Jones is a partner in Mishcon de Reya’s Litigation Department and co-head of its Investigations Group. As a specialist in civil fraud, asset tracing and injunctive work, he has acted for both claimants and defendants, obtaining and opposing multiple search orders, asset freezing orders and disclosure orders in large cross-jurisdictional commercial disputes.
Mishcon de Reya is one of the UK’s leading law firms, employing over 1,200 people – including 600 lawyers – across its offices in London and Singapore. Mishcon’s team acts in accordance with the firm’s socially conscious values to affect profound and far-reaching change for their clients across all areas of law.
In this article, Iryna Vale of TMF UK explains what the Register is and what overseas entities need to do if they are in scope.
The Register came into force in the UK on 1 August 2022 through the new Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (the “Act”). The Act requires any overseas entity (defined below) which currently owns or in the future acquires freehold or long leasehold land in the UK to register its ownership with Companies House. This must include a declaration of the beneficial owners or managing officers and needs to be completed by 31 January 2023.
The UK government defines an overseas entity as “a legal entity, such as a company or other organisation, that has legal personality and is governed by the law of a country or territory outside of the UK.” According to this definition, the Republic of Ireland is considered an overseas jurisdiction.
An individual or entity is described as a beneficial owner if they meet one or more of the following conditions:
Until the introduction of the Act earlier this year, only UK entities were required to disclose their owners on a public register. However, under the new rules, anonymous foreign owners will have to reveal their identity and records will be required to be updated on an annual basis. Once implemented, it will be simpler for the authorities to establish an organisation’s beneficiaries or controlling parties and thus to monitor and prevent fraudulent activity.
Under the new rules, anonymous foreign owners will have to reveal their identity and records will be required to be updated on an annual basis.
The stringent data protection laws in place in the UK mean that, although cited as a public record, Companies House will not display any personal data of the beneficial owners. It is mandatory to provide information such as a complete date of birth, residential address and email address, but these are for the purpose of data collection only.
The Act is applicable to all overseas entities who have purchased property or land on or after 1 January 1999 in England and Wales or 8 December 2014 in Scotland.
To prevent non-disclosure by way of a sale, the Act also applies retrospectively to property or land sold in the UK on or after the 28 February 2022.
While you may not currently fall into the categories above, for any future sale you will be required to demonstrate your compliance with the Act and supply your registration to the new buyer.
The penalties imposed on those who are not compliant with the Act can include fines of up to £2,500 a day or up to five years’ imprisonment. Restrictions will also be imposed when buying, selling, transferring, leasing or charging property or land.
[ymal]
All overseas entities that fall within the defined parameters must provide the required information on both the entity itself and its ultimate beneficial owners. Information on an entity’s managing director must be provided in cases where a beneficial owner cannot be determined. Where a foreign trust holds UK real estate, the trustee(s) of that trust is considered a registrable beneficial owner and details about the trust must be shared as well. For further clarity of the necessary requirements, please refer to the UK government guidance.
A UK-regulated agent must complete verification checks on all beneficial owners and managing officers of an overseas entity before it can be registered.
Completion of Register filings with Companies House have demonstrated that this process is rarely straightforward. In certain cases, registration can be even more challenging, especially when it is a condition of sale. This increase in complexity requires keeping to a tight deadline, given that completion must be submitted by 31 January.
Another example of a complex scenario is where the trustees of a trust are registrable beneficial owners. Information on that trust will need to be provided, including:
With no monetary threshold conditions, it is surprising that at the time of writing there have been just 2,299 registrations, which according to some estimations is fewer than 10% of the entities which are in scope. A necessary consideration for those in scope is to register now to avoid both non-compliance and any further restrictions during any future sale process.
Iryna Vale, Head of Corporate Secretarial Services
Iryna Vale is Head of Corporate Secretarial Services at TMF UK. A chartered company secretary with over 15 years’ work experience in the company secretarial field, her previous experience includes independently managing portfolios of up to 600 clients.
TMF Group is an international provider of administrative services. Its 9,100 experts provide legal, financial and employee administration through the Group’s 120 offices worldwide.
Morton Fraser partner Richard McMeeken offers his thoughts below.
While Apple was recently sued by consumer groups claiming the business planned obsolescence in its technology, Meta is in the sights of claimants because of the Cambridge Analytica scandal – and an action against TikTok alleges the company sent children’s data to China without permission or parental consent, breaking GDPR laws.
Class actions are gathering pace in Europe, with big tech companies most prominently set in claimants’ sights.
The Netherlands, which is home of the current TikTok action, has become a hub for class actions in recent years. It is understood that around 50 class actions have now been instigated in the Dutch courts. Why might this be the case?
First, there is a relatively low cost of instigating claims in the Netherlands. Secondly, there is a low adverse costs risk. Thirdly, litigation funding is prevalent. Finally, the Dutch court system tends to be quite fast, as compared to the court system of some of its European neighbours.
These features are all common to litigation in Scotland, too. To raise a court action in the Scottish courts there is a modest court fee, especially when compared to anywhere else in the UK. And while the risk of adverse costs can be significant for an unsuccessful party, there are a couple of measures now available which potentially mitigate that risk to a significant extent.
Class actions are gathering pace in Europe, with big tech companies most prominently set in claimants’ sights.
For example, protective expenses orders may be available to a claimant in some cases. And in class actions arising out of clinical negligence issues, qualified one-way cost shifting may apply. Further, where claimants are willing and able to pay the premium involved, the availability of After the Event (ATE) insurance cover may mitigate the risk of an adverse costs award entirely.
All of this is supplemented by the increased availability of litigation funding. Like the Netherlands, there are no constraints on the use of funding in group proceedings, which sets Scotland apart from some other jurisdictions. So, if Scotland is so well-positioned for class actions, why have there not been more?
The main reason is that the Scottish procedure is still in its relative infancy. Class actions, known within Scotland as ‘group proceedings’, were introduced with the Civil Litigation (Expenses and Group Proceedings) (Scotland) Act 2018. And while the 2018 Act provides for the possibility of both ‘opt in’ and ‘opt out’ class actions, only provisions relating to opt in actions have been brought into force.
Opt in actions mean that the claimants have proactively sought to be involved in the action, but they can be of limited value because of the efforts required to find enough claimants to participate in the class.
However, opt out actions, which are available throughout Europe, are brought on behalf of a defined group of claimants without the claimants having to proactively choose to participate. If the representative party successfully persuades the court that the action should be brought, then any successful outcome will be shared by all claimants in the class. Accordingly, the value of opt out claims is potentially far more significant. This means that the introduction of opt out actions in due course will significantly benefit Scottish consumers.
Like the Netherlands, there are no constraints on the use of funding in group proceedings, which sets Scotland apart from some other jurisdictions.
While they are yet to be introduced, the concept of opt out actions is not entirely alien to Scotland. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced opt out procedure to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) which has UK-wide jurisdiction in relation to breaches of competition law. Competition law disputes are common in Scotland and the CAT has already had experience dealing with significant opt out claims.
Experience in the CAT suggests that the courts may be willing to take a pro-consumer approach to opt out claims. In the Mastercard v Merricks case, in which the CAT had to deal with a collective claim for damages resulting from an alleged breach of competition law by Mastercard, the court gave claimants significant comfort. The court decided that in relation to the standard for certification, it would not involve a merits test, and in the approach to damages, a ‘broad brush’ approach could be taken.
If that sort of flexible approach is shown by the courts in Scotland in relation to group proceedings, then these claims could be a real boost for Scottish consumers. Businesses will therefore need to take early advice to protect themselves if a claim is on the horizon. Potential claimants and their lawyers will be paying close attention to the likely timescale for introduction of opt out actions, as that introduction may well see a proliferation of claims which we have seen in other jurisdictions.
While the Scottish courts are just beginning to implement group proceedings and fine-tune how they will operate in practice, there are positive indicators that the nation could become a destination for class actions, both with opt in proceedings already available and the conditions which make the Netherlands favourable mirroring those in Scotland.
[ymal]
However, it is important to note that the opportunities that group proceedings may bring for consumers have to be balanced against the risks and cost for business.
The gradual introduction of group proceedings in Scotland, combined with a cautious approach from the court, is likely to mitigate the risk of costly and unmeritorious claims. Regardless, businesses will have to be ready to deal with these claims when they arise.
Richard McMeeken, Partner and Solicitor Advocate
Quartermile Two, 2 Lister Square, Edinburgh EH3 9GL, UK
Tel: +44 0131 247 1035
Richard McMeeken is a partner and solicitor advocate in the commercial litigation team at independent Scottish law firm Morton Fraser.
Organised by the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) in collaboration with 21 supporting partner organisations, SC Week 2022 attracted over 4,000 local and overseas in-person and virtual participants from the legal, business and government sectors over five days (29 August 2022 to 2 September 2022).
At the heart of SC Week 2022 was the UNCITRAL Academy, which comprised the UNCITRAL Academy Conference and Capacity-Building Workshops. Jointly organised by MinLaw and the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), the UNCITRAL Academy took place from 30 August to 1 September 2022. Themed ‘Embracing Global Change, Navigating New Possibilities’, the discussions centred on current trends and challenges in cross-border dispute resolution amidst the quick-changing global landscape, and breakthroughs in dispute resolution practice.
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law K Shanmugam SC delivered his welcome address, emphasising the importance of upholding rules-based multilateralism against a backdrop of uncertainty and global challenges brought about by COVID-19 and geopolitical tensions. He highlighted, “The Singapore Convention on Mediation provides businesses with greater assurance that their international mediated settlement agreements can be enforced across borders.”
Secretary of UNCITRAL Anna Joubin-Bret gave her opening remarks, where she expressed her appreciation for the Singapore Government’s role in helping to facilitate opportunities for the legal industry. She said, “The launch of UNCITRAL Academy here in Singapore as part of the Singapore Convention Week has been a dream of ours – to turn our legislative work into practice as close as possible to the end user and their needs.”
During a fireside chat on the evolution of dispute resolution in Asia, Minister for Culture, Community and Youth and Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong SC shared Singapore’s journey to becoming a leading centre for international commercial dispute resolution. He also expressed optimism about growing opportunities for young practitioners in Asia as new areas and opportunities emerge in the region.
“The Singapore Convention on Mediation provides businesses with greater assurance that their international mediated settlement agreements can be enforced across borders.”
Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Law, Rahayu Mahzam launched the second edition of the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy’s (SIDRA) Singapore Convention on Mediation Commentary Book during the UNCITRAL Academy Conference.
The Conference also hosted rich panel discussions on pertinent topics such as investor-state dispute settlement reforms and dispute resolution in relation to the digital economy, climate change and various specialised fields.
Three UNCITRAL Academy Capacity-Building Workshops were held virtually over two days:
SC Week 2022 proudly offered a large range of exciting events organised by partner institutions and associations throughout the week, which explored a range of legal and dispute resolution-related topics, such as ‘Singapore’s Role in Maritime Dispute Resolution’, ‘Litigation in the Asia-Pacific Region’ and ‘Complex Mediations for a Digital Age’. The events drove rich discussions among global experts and thought leaders.
Promising young dispute resolution practitioners from around the world came to Singapore to exchange views on emerging issues in dispute resolution on 31 August 2022, with Second Minister for Law Edwin Tong SC and Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Law Rahayu Mahzam joining in the roundtable discussions and presentations. It was an insightful session, where the practitioners shared varied perspectives and experiences with their peers, with a view to shaping the future of international dispute resolution.
Promising young dispute resolution practitioners from around the world came to Singapore to exchange views on emerging issues in dispute resolution
Guests enjoyed a stunning bird’s eye view of Singapore while reconnecting with old friends and toasting to new connections at an exclusive welcome reception hosted by MinLaw to formally welcome SC Week 2022 participants and kick off the week’s events on 29 August 2022.
After a day of fruitful discussions at the UNCITRAL Academy Conference on 30 August 2022, participants gathered along the rich historic lanes of Emerald Hill for a casual evening of networking with light bites and drinks.
SC Week 2022 participants were given a ‘taste’ of Singapore through various curated activities on 28 August 2022.
The Market to Table Culinary Experience brought participants to a wet market to pick out fresh ingredients and cook local favourites such as chicken rice, alongside professional chefs. Gin enthusiasts who signed up for the Brass Lion Distillery Tour learnt more about the distilling process and sampled some locally made spirits.
An exclusive tour of the former Supreme Court gave participants the opportunity to explore areas of the historic building not usually open to the public. To cap off the day, participants set sail on an evening Singapore River Cruise to take in the sights of Singapore’s nightscape from an iconic traditional bumboat.
[ymal]
SC Week 2022 was made possible with the strong support of UNCITRAL, our partner organisations and student volunteers.
The success of SC Week 2022 is a testament to the pivotal role that Singapore continues to play in promoting global thought leadership and bringing expert practitioners, academics and business leaders together to share best practices and insights on international dispute resolution amidst a changing operating landscape.
The Singapore Convention on Mediation is an essential instrument in the facilitation of international trade and the promotion of mediation as an effective cross-border dispute resolution option. SC Week reinforces our commitment to the Convention and to multilateralism.
Highlights of the SC Week 2022 are available online.
The combination will add Link Legal's roster of more than 160 lawyers across its Mumbai, Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai and Hyderabad outlets to Dentons' platform of more than 20,000 professionals in more than 80 countries. The Indian firm will also change its name to Dentons Link Legal.
India's legal market has historically been quite isolated due to a 1961 law that prohibits non-Indian law firms from practising in the country. Previously, Dentons served Indian clients from its locations in countries such as Poland and Singapore but did not maintain a physical presence in the country.
Following the combination deal, Dentons Link Legal will continue to serve its clients within India while Dentons serves its international client, maintaining consistency with Indian law.
Link Legal managing partner Atul Sharma lauded the combination, but emphasised that ownership of the firm was not changing. "The combination allows us to be both global and local while continuing to be wholly owned, controlled and managed by Indian lawyers at Link Legal in India," he said in a statement.
The order, which comes as part of lengthy negotiations, will form a pillar of a transatlantic data sharing agreement between the US and EU.
In addition to limiting US security agencies' abiility to access information from European and American citizens, the decree will grant new powers to officials in the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence to investigate potential breaches of privacy rights.
The new 'Data Protection Review Court', which will exist within the Department of Justice, will allow citizens to file lawsuits via 'special advocates' to challenge how governmental agencies use their data. This has the potential to become a significant limit on the operations of the NSA and other bodies.
In a briefing on Thurssday, Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo said that the court's decisions ought to be independent and binding. “These commitments fully address the Court of Justice of the European Union’s 2020 Schrems II decision and will cover personal data transfers to the United States under EU law,” she said.
The decree will now be sent to Brussels, where the European Commission will transpose it into its own rules.
Alex Christen of Capital Law explains the legal perspective around digital nomad visas and what employers should look out for before accepting requests from employees who want to work this way.
The status of working abroad for digital nomads has traditionally been uncertain. Many individuals had previously worked from their destination of choice without realising the need for immigration permission, leading to legal and tax implications. Historically, countries have required individuals to obtain specific work visas where they would be sponsored and employed by a local company or business. Employees on work visas often must be paid a minimum salary and must satisfy basic skills, but this concept does not always suit nomads who run their own business or who are self-employed. Equally, the idea of sponsorship suggests anchoring transient individuals to one place when they would otherwise hope to travel to other countries while still being able to work.
An increasing number of companies, such as Twitter, have begun to offer remote working as an option for employees whilst retaining a physical office space. In 2021, Google introduced a ‘work-from-anywhere’ policy for employees. Digital nomads are taking this concept and running with it, allowing themselves to combine travel and work from tropical beach destinations across the globe.
The gap in the market was spotted and acted upon by some countries, included Dubai and the UAE, who were some of the first countries/emirates to offer a remote working visa for high-earning employees. Employees can work within the emirate for up to one year providing they satisfy certain minimum salary requirements, but there is no need for sponsorship or a local employer. Italy and Brazil followed suit soon after, offering similar schemes. Since then, Indonesia, Thailand, Germany, Spain, Aruba, the Cayman Islands, Barbados and Brazil, amongst many other counties, have begun offering this type of visa.
The status of working abroad for digital nomads has traditionally been uncertain.
The concept tends to appeal to younger generations, who often harbour the desire to travel while maintaining an income, allowing them to extend their time abroad. Many individuals who may otherwise have been travelling throughout the pandemic feel they have been ‘robbed’ of their chance to travel the world. The visas therefore offer employees the ability to travel the world while maintaining a stable job and steady income. Although tourist visas typically apply to short stays, the appeal of digital nomad visas is that they allow visitors to remain in their chosen country for an extended period of time, such as one year or longer, making it more appealing for those that wish to settle for longer.
Many countries recognise the economic benefits digital nomads can bring. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, countries across the world experienced a hit to their tourism sectors. This was particularly felt by those countries whose income centres around tourism and the revenue it brings, such as Barbados and Thailand.
The benefits are twofold; digital nomads can extend their stay, as they are able to generate incomes whilst travelling, which in turn increases their expenditure in the host country. This allows for a potential influx of high-earning individuals to provide local economies with an injection of wealth. Equally, individuals in host countries may arrive with a wealth of knowledge and skills in areas which may not be as abundant to their host country. This could act as a catalyst for the sharing of knowledge and resources between people and cultures alike, benefitting everyone.
Many countries recognise the economic benefits digital nomads can bring.
Employers may also experience benefits from such a scheme. Employing staff on a virtual basis can result in reduced overheads and is also appealing to attract new staff looking for a more flexible balance between work and life – and travel. Offering the ability to work remotely is attractive for potential employees who have grown accustomed to the concept of remote working throughout the pandemic.
Usually, an employee will need to be employed by a company outside of their host country. They are usually not permitted to take up employment in the country they are staying in, but there may be tax and social security implications. An individual may have a right to work remotely in Italy, for example, but their employer must check how the employee’s pay should be taxed to ensure that the employee does not fall foul of local tax and social security requirements.
Similarly, the employee could be entitled to Italian employment rights from day one of their remote working, despite what their contract may state about the law that governs the employment relationship. It is therefore important to check local legislation and guidance before authorising a request to work remotely and ascertain whether the employee may be afforded additional protection under local employment laws – and, if so, what these are. Other considerations include whether there are any local H&S compliance issues, whether the employee would need to be registered with local authorities and whether cross border data transfers are protected. Employers must put safeguards in place and ensure compliance with GDPR where appropriate.
The visa is not a free pass for everyone; employees still need to meet eligibility and visa requirements. Each host country has their own requirements and policies which should be consulted carefully before applying, with some countries requiring applicants to attend interviews. The processing time varies, although it can take up to one month before it is approved. The required documents may include any of the following:
Employers may decide that they wish to offer the option of international remote working in their organisation. If so, I recommend putting in place a clear policy and process to ensure that employees understand the requirements for the visa and how and when an application should be made. Employers will need to make it clear that responsibility (including the fee, unless agreed otherwise between employer and employee) lies with the employee if they wish to work remotely, although the employer may need to provide supporting documents in some cases.
[ymal]
The employee should also be aware of any impact remote working could have on their ability to settle in the UK permanently if they do not already have an indefinite right to work here. For example, if an employee is sponsored in the UK under the Skilled Worker route, after five years’ continuous residence they can apply for indefinite leave to remain in the UK. However, lengthy absences from the UK may impact that application.
Overall, the digital nomad visa is a forward-thinking immigration solution which provides flexibility to employees in light of the rise in remote working following the pandemic. As more and more countries continue to follow in Dubai’s footsteps, it seems this new visa concept here to stay – and will therefore require consideration amongst employers and employees alike.
Alex Christen, Senior Associate
Capital Law
Capital Building, Tyndall Street, Cardiff CF10 4AZ
Tel: +44 02920 474423
E: a.christen@capitallaw.co.uk
Alex Christen is a senior associate in Capital Law’s employment and immigration team. With over six years’ experience in providing businesses and individuals with immigration advice and praise from The Legal 500 for her professional approach, she supports clients across a range of industries on all manner of employment law.
Capital Law is a full-service commercial law firm with offices in Cardiff, London and Paris. Its clients include businesses of all sizes, from start-ups to large corporates. It also works with a growing number of not-for-profit organisations in education and social housing, as well as with regulators and governmental bodies. As a member of several international legal networks, its lawyers often advise overseas clients and general counsel in global companies.
Accredited arbitrator Beyeeman Akyea divulges more on the current ADR climate of Ghana in this feature.
Historically, ADR in Ghana first existed in the form of customary arbitration. During Ghana’s pre-colonial era and prior to the recent emergence of formal alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, customary arbitration was administered by the prominent natives of a clan in ‘colonial courts’ or via the extended family system.
Today, customary arbitration continues to involve the resolution of disputes according to the specific and unique cultural norms, practices, and values of each tribe; it is a well-established relic of ADR that is recognised by law and the Ghanaian legal community.
Nonetheless, arbitration, mediation and negotiation are the primary and prevalent systems of ADR available in Ghana today. Mediation and negotiation are non-adjudicatory, whereas arbitration is adjudicatory.
During arbitration, parties to a dispute may submit their case to a neutral third party whose role is to evaluate the arguments of each party and render a decision based on the substantive merits of the case. The neutral third party shall then issue a final decision which becomes an award that is binding on the parties. A Ghanaian High Court may enforce the arbitral tribunal’s decision through enforcement proceedings initiated by a successful party.
On the other hand, mediation, which is also known as assisted negotiation, involves parties employing the services of a neutral third party to act as a facilitator who assists the parties in resolving their common dispute. Parties can enter into a mediated agreement if mediation is successful.
Today, customary arbitration continues to involve the resolution of disputes according to the specific and unique cultural norms, practices, and values of each tribe.
Regarding negotiation, parties, either on their own or through their representatives, may convene and attempt to resolve their issues without the involvement of a third party. This is undertaken by exchanging offers and counteroffers with the aim of reaching a settlement through negotiation. In cases where negotiation is successful, the parties may enter into a negotiated settlement which may form the basis of a consent judgment that may then be formally adopted in a Ghanaian court if the negotiation is court-connected.
Hybrid ADR methods and outgrowths, which are also utilised in Ghana, include med-arb, arb-med, expert determination, neutral evaluation and judicial settlement conferences. These ADR mechanisms, in totality, reflect international ADR standards, practices and procedures. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010, Act 798, that governs ADR in Ghana has substantially mirrored the UNCITRAL Model Law.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) codified the practice of ADR in Ghana and serves as the foremost legislative framework that governs the various forms of ADR within the country.
For instance, Act 798 grants legislative legitimacy to customary arbitration in Ghanaian legal jurisprudence by recognising it as a formal and valid alternative means of resolving disputes. Act 798 dictates the conduct, practice and procedure of customary arbitration in Ghana, whereas such uniform rules did not previously exist.
Regarding arbitration, the ADR Act aligns the Ghanaian ADR practice with international standards by adopting provisions and principles contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law, such as the principles of separability, kompetenz – kompetenz and amiable compositeur.
Lastly, Act 798 shapes mediation by making provision for it to be used as a court-connected ADR process to enhance Ghana’s Judicial Service. Under the ADR Act and the Courts Act 1993 (Act 459), the court may refer a scope of matters to mediation. This helps to ingrain ADR within the fabric of dispute resolution in Ghana.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) codified the practice of ADR in Ghana.
In Ghana, other vital statutes that govern the practice of ADR include the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I 47), the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) and the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651).
I have particularly noticed the slow but gradual adoption of ADR within Ghana’s legal dispute resolution system. ADR was previously a side attraction reserved for unconventional pioneering practitioners or those approaching the sunset of their legal careers. However, the increasing case congestion within Ghana’s courtrooms has compelled the legal community to find an alternative to litigation in ADR.
For instance, to catalyse the adoption of ADR, the courts, in enforcing the Alternate Dispute Resolution Act, make considerable use of court-connected ADR, which is attached to all High Courts and some District Courts in Ghana.
Furthermore, to reduce court congestion, Order 58 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (C.I. 47) mandates that pre-trial settlement conferences be held in commercial courts. This simultaneously affords judges more time to effectively handle cases which are not amenable to ADR.
In exercising their duties, responsibilities and legislative mandates, it is also noteworthy that governmental institutions employ various ADR processes. These institutions include the National Labour Commission, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ), the Judicial Service, the Department of Social Welfare and the Legal Aid Commission.
The increasing case congestion within Ghana’s courtrooms has compelled the legal community to find an alternative to litigation in ADR.
These changes have had the snowball effect of expanding the ADR community within Ghana by encouraging young lawyers to proactively train in order to specialise in ADR and demonstrate their expertise through private practice and thought leadership. These developments are shifting the spotlight onto ADR in Ghana. Institutions such as the Ghana Arbitration Center in Accra, the Ghana ADR Hub in Kumasi and the Ghana Association of Certified Mediators and Arbitrators are at the forefront of making ADR more accessible and well-known to the general public.
ADR has become an integral part of Ghana’s legal and judicial system, providing flexible, confidential and more efficient conflict resolution mechanisms which serve as viable alternatives to traditional litigation. Despite this, there are still significant limitations that have stifled the growth and adoption of ADR mechanisms in Ghana.
In the first premise, under law, certain types of disputes are not amenable to ADR. According to the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1971 (Act 367), divorce proceedings can only be initiated in a Ghanaian court; therefore, a marriage cannot be formally dissolved through ADR. In addition, Act 798 stipulates that matters involving the national or public interest, the environment and the enforcement and interpretation of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana are not arbitrable or amenable to other forms of ADR.
These legislative obstacles define and limit the scope of ADR in Ghana. As regards culture, the Ghanaian legal ecosystem has maintained a conservative stance concerning dispute resolution, and thus litigation remains the default method for resolving legal issues.
Parties and their lawyers are typically reluctant to use ADR as a first–line means of resolving disputes. This is primarily fuelled by the negative stereotype that ADR, being a voluntary mechanism, is a waste of time and resources since parties may withdraw their consent at any time, as well as the fact that dissatisfied parties may not appeal final and binding awards[1]. This creates a general sense of unpredictability, and as a result, parties and their lawyers usually prefer the comparative certainty that traditional litigation offers.
[ymal]
I would strongly encourage young and less experienced legal practitioners to view ADR not as a side attraction but as a primary and viable means of resolving disputes. ADR can provide effective and practical solutions to a client's legal issues while simultaneously broadening a practitioner's skill set and bringing professional satisfaction.
I recommend that legal practitioners who wish to specialise in ADR may reap its rewards by centring their practice around ADR and carving out a niche for themselves by undergoing the necessary training (such as the training offered by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators) to hone their skills and become a market leader in ADR.
The future of ADR in Ghana appears increasingly promising. I anticipate that ADR will continue to grow as a practice area as individuals, corporations, and practitioners turn away from costly and protracted litigation toward cost-effective ADR.
On the current tangent, I expect that international arbitration will particularly take centre stage within the ADR practice. The world continues to experience globalisation, and Ghana’s positive economic outlook will attract trade and commerce from other global economies. This is bound to create commercial and other international disputes that will require the expertise of Ghanaian ADR practitioners to resolve conflicts and protect the nation's economic interests.
Beyeeman Akyea, Associate
Zoe Akyea & Co Legal Practitioners
C114 Aborlebu Crescent, North - Labone, Accra, Ghana
Tel: +233 02637 10092 | + 44 07873 965748
E: beyeeman.akyea@zoeakyea.org
Beyeeman Akyea is an associate at Zoe, Akyea & Co. and a barrister and solicitor licensed to practice in Ghana and in England and Wales. He is also a Member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitration and is on course to both become accredited by the New York State Bar and become a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitration. Beyeeman considers alternative dispute resolution to be a foundational practice area that has greatly assisted him in other areas of his expertise, such as civil litigation, construction and energy law and banking and finance law (fintech law).
Zoe, Akyea & Co is a pioneering, long-established and highly regarded corporate, commercial and dispute resolution law firm in Ghana that has maintained a national reputation for providing excellent full-service advice to its clients.
[1] Section 52, Alternative Dispute Resolution Act 2010 (Act 798)
