Experience

Commercial Arbitration

  • Croatian company v. Russian company, dispute arises out of a contract for the sale and purchase of gas, ICC Rules, Austrian law (Co-arbitrator)
  • Korean company v. Chinese company, dispute arises out of a payment guarantee, KCAB Rules, Korean law (Co-arbitrator)
  • Swiss company v. Irish company, dispute concerns the suspension and termination of several long-term contracts for the supply of coal, ICC Rules, English law (Co-arbitrator)
  • UK company v. UAE company, dispute arises out of a franchise agreement, DIAC Rules, DIFC law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • UAE/Indian company v. UAE company, dispute arises out of a sale purchase agreement in the real estate sector, DIAC Rules, UAE law (Co-arbitrator)
  • Austrian company v. English company, dispute arises out of agreements concerning the purchase of plastic materials, SCC Rules, English law (Chair)
  • Swiss company v. Bulgarian company, dispute arising out of a coal supply agreement, SCC Rules, English Law (Chair)
  • Turkish company v. Afghani company, dispute concerns substation construction project, SIAC Rules, Afghani Law (Chair)
  • UAE entity v. UAE entity, dispute arises out of a partnership agreement, DIAC Rules, UAE Law (Chair)
  • Gibraltar company v. Swiss company, dispute concerns oil delivery agreement, LCIA Rules, English Law (Co-arbitrator)
  • UAE company v. UAE company, dispute arises out of a construction project, UNCITRAL Rules (ad hoc), UAE Law (Co-arbitrator)
  • Saudi Arabian company v. BVI, Maltese and Egyptian companies, dispute concerns the financing of a large infrastructure project, CRCICA Rules, English Law (Co-arbitrator)
  • Saudi Arabian company v. Chinese/ Saudi company, dispute arises out of a power project, LCAM Rules, Law of Saudi Arabia (Co-arbitrator)
  • UAE/Chinese company v. UAE company, dispute concerns feasibility study for infrastructure project, DIAC Rules, UAE Law (Chair)
  • Azerbaijani entity v. Austrian and Jersey entities, dispute arises out of a service agreement, VIAC Rules, Austrian Law (Chair)
  • UAE company v. Iranian company, dispute arising out of a cooperation agreement, DIAC Rules, UAE Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • UK company and Hong Kong company v. UAE company, dispute arising out of a sales contract relating to chemicals, SCC Rules, The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (Chair)
  • UK entity v. UAE company, dispute arising out of a share purchase agreement in the property development sector, DIFC-LCIA Rules, DIFC Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Qatari entity v. Qatari company, dispute arising out of a lease agreement, ad hoc, Qatari Law (Chair)
  • BVI entity v. three UAE entities, dispute arising out of management agreement, DIFC-LCIA Rules, DIFC Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • UK company and two UAE companies v. UAE company, dispute arising out of share sale and purchase agreement, DIFC-LCIA Rules, DIFC Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Russian company v. Hong Kong company, dispute arising out of a sale and purchase agreement concerning maritime goods, HKIAC Rules (Expedited Procedure), Laws of England & Wales / Russian Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • UAE entity v. UAE entity, dispute arising out of a construction contract, ADDCAC Rules, UAE Law (Co-arbitrator)
  • BVI company v. UAE company, dispute arising out of a loan agreement, DIFC-LCIA Rules, Laws of England & Wales (Co-arbitrator)
  • Indian entity (DIFC branch) v. UAE entity, dispute arising from a credit facility agreement, DIFC-LCIA Rules, Laws of England & Wales (Co-arbitrator)
  • Malaysian entity v. Singaporean entity, dispute arising from a supply agreement, ad hoc, Malaysian law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Indian claimant v. Panama respondent, dispute arising from a share purchase agreement, DIAC Rules, UAE Law (Chair)
  • UAE claimants v. Japanese respondent, dispute arising from a shareholder agreement in the automotive industry, DIAC Rules, UAE Law (Chair)
  • UAE entity v. Indonesian entities, dispute arising from a coal sale purchase agreement, SIAC Rules (Expedited Procedure), Law of England & Wales (Sole Arbitrator)
  • UAE claimant v. UAE respondent, dispute arising out of a lease agreement, DIAC Rules, UAE Law (Chair)
  • American and UAE claimants v. BVI and UAE respondents, dispute arising out of an option repurchase agreement in the hospitality sector, DIFC-LCIA Rules, UAE Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • UAE company v. Saudi Arabian company, dispute arising out of two licensing/franchising agreements, LCIA Rules, Kuwaiti and Bahraini Law (Chair)
  • Omani claimant v. UAE respondent, dispute arising from shareholder agreement, DIFC-LCIA Rules, UAE Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Omani claimant v. UAE respondent, dispute arising from share purchase agreement, DIFC-LCIA Rules, UAE Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Saudi Arabian company v. UAE company, dispute arising from distribution agreement, ICC Rules, UAE Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Indian claimant v. American respondent, dispute arising out of a partnership agreement in the hospitality sector, DIFC-LCIA Rules, UAE Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • US American claimant v. UAE companies, dispute arising from a joint venture agreement, DIFC-LCIA Rules, UAE Law (Co-arbitrator)
  • Russian claimant v. UAE respondent, dispute arising from a property contract, DIAC Rules, UAE Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • UAE company v. two Belorussian companies, dispute arising from an oil delivery contract, LCIA Rules, Law of England & Wales (Co-arbitrator in two parallel proceedings)
  • Turkish company v. Tunisian company, dispute arising from steel sales contract, Swiss Rules (Expedited Procedure), Swiss Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Belorussian company v. Italian company, delivery and installation agreement, Swiss Rules, Swiss Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Swiss company v. US corporation, sales contract, ICC Rules, Swiss Rules, Swiss Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • French company v. Saudi Arabian company, dispute arising out of a design and management services agreement concerning the construction and restructuring of a shopping centre, ICC Rules, Swiss Law (Sole Arbitrator)
  • Turkish company v. Ministry of Education of a Central Asian State, contractual dispute arising from a sales contract, UNCITRAL Rules, Swiss Law (Chair)
  • Russian company v. Irish company, contractual dispute in the telecommunications sector, ad hoc, Swiss Law (Chair)
  • Hong Kong corporation v. Ukrainian company, delivery of telecommunication equipment, DIS Rules, German Law (Chair)

Investment Arbitration

  • Eastern European investors v. European State, mining dispute, BIT, UNCITRAL (Co-arbitrator)
  • Japanese investor v. Spain, (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/4), dispute arising under the Energy Charter Treaty, ICSID Rules (Presiding Arbitrator)
  • English/ US investors v. Kazakhstan (ICSID Case No. ARB/15/13), dispute arising under the UK/US – Kazakhstan BITs, ICSID Rules (Co-arbitrator)

Contact

Anne K. Hoffmann, LL.M.
Hoffmann Arbitration FZE

Level 3, The Offices 3, One Central,
World Trade Centre
PO Box 9573
Dubai
UAE

ahoffmann@hoffmannarbitration.com

+971 50 98 76 488

On LinkedIn