Boutique by Design - International by Instinct
Joshua is a first-year Trainee Solicitor and holds a law degree from University of Oxford (Oriel College). At University, he focused on modules considering the fundamentals governing contract and property law, most notably achieving a distinction for his dissertation on the underlying principles of contractual remedies.
Before joining Hamish Lal Partners, Joshua worked on a project on the use of AI in international arbitration. At University, he was the President of the Oriel Law Society, and Vice-President to a body representing law students at Law Faculty meetings, showing his strong dedication to colleagues. He regularly competed in mooting competitions, gaining valuable advocacy experience throughout his time at University.
Since joining Hamish Lal Partners, Joshua has supported various filings and procedural applications, as well as conducting research on an array of issues related to construction law. Representative current matters include:
The US Supreme Court has been asked to clarify the legal regime governing non-signatories to arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. In particular, the Court is now asked to resolve whether state law principles of equitable estoppel apply to a claim to extend an arbitration agreement, or whether “federal common law” derived from a […]
Apportionment of liability amongst participants in an unincorporated joint venture is complex. Such complexity is increased when one participant is in dispute with the joint venture and the absence of arbitration joinder means that there are two arbitrations. This gives rise to questions of the boundary of jurisdiction of each Tribunal and to questions about […]
Arbitral awards are rarely set aside. In DWL v DWM,[1] the Singapore High Court dismissed an application to set-aside an arbitral award for excess of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice. Eminent judges have been clear “there is a difference between, on the one hand, a party having no opportunity to address a point or […]
In JKD and anor v IKC,[1] the English High Court dismissed a challenge under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to an arbitral Order refusing to restrain a call on a bond. This is another important case because it reinforces the thinking that section 68 challenges apply only to Awards (not arbitral Orders) and […]
In DSS v DST,[1] the Singapore High Court found that an award, where 108 out of the 211 paragraphs were wholesale or substantial reproductions of excerpts from a related award, was not rendered in breach of natural justice. The Claimant said that the reproductions were not limited to reciting of uncontroversial procedural matters but “extend […]
In TTSJV W.L.L and others v BapCo Refining B.S.C (TTSJV),[1] the English High Court dismissed an application for an injunction against a bond call. Applications to restrain bond calls are difficult, given the high threshold. London has reaffirmed the position that a call on an ‘on-demand’ bond can only be restrained in cases of fraud […]
