HFW's origins trace back to the early 19th century with the Holman family's maritime ventures in Topsham, England. They established key marine insurance and protection associations from 1832 to 1870. In 1883, Frank Holman began practicing law in London, founding what would become HFW.
The firm evolved through several partnerships and relocations, adopting the name Holman Fenwick & Willan in 1916. HFW expanded to meet clients' needs, diversifying into aerospace, commodities, construction, energy, insurance, and shipping. Today, it operates 21 offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia Pacific, making it a leading global law firm.
HFW was among the first UK firms to internationalize, opening offices in Paris (1977) and Hong Kong (1978). Subsequent expansions included Singapore, Piraeus, Shanghai, Dubai, Melbourne, Brussels, Sydney, Geneva, Perth, Houston, Abu Dhabi, Monaco, the BVI, and Shenzhen. HFW also collaborates with Brazil’s top insurance and aviation law firm, CAR.
The Commercial Court set aside an arbitration award becausethe Claimant's emailed arbitration notice to an individual employee at the Respondent did not constitute valid service under the Arbitration Act 1996.
England & Wales: A reminder of the importance of securing
valid notice of arbitration1
The Commercial Court set aside an arbitration award
becausethe Claimant's emailed arbitration notice to an
individual employee at the Respondent did not constitute valid
service under the Arbitration Act 1996.
The employee in question had been involved in the performance of
the contract before the dispute had arisen but was described as a
junior back office employee in the operations department. The Court
found that he did not have authority (actual or ostensible) to
accept service of an arbitration notice and the notice had not
therefore been validly served. The arbitration never came to the
attention of the anyone with such authority, and the Respondent did
not participate in the arbitration.
The case serves as a reminder of the importance of considering
how best to effect service, including identifying who within an
organisation is authorised to accept service, in particular when
attempting to serve by email in circumstances when this has not
been agreed with the other party.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
