ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about the arbitration agreement

Brexit—drafting and negotiating dispute resolution clauses—checklist [Archived]

Brexit—drafting and negotiating dispute resolution clauses—checklist [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. For up to date guidance, see: Governing law and jurisdiction clauses in commercial contracts―checklist. Brexit: As of exit day (11pm on 31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK has entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. This has an impact on this Checklist. For further guidance, see Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources and Brexit toolkit. This Checklist considers the implications of Brexit on drafting and negotiating dispute resolution clauses. It considers the position of applicable law clauses (also referred to as governing law clauses or choice of law clauses), jurisdiction clauses, the enforcement of judgments and the service of documents. Issue and current position Drafting and negotiation implications Applicable law During the implementation period During the implementation period, when determining which law is applicable when resolving a dispute which involves EU...

View the related practice notes about the arbitration agreement

Swiss Rules (2021)—responding to a Notice of Arbitration (the Answer)

Swiss Rules (2021)—responding to a Notice of Arbitration (the Answer) The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration as revised on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless otherwise agreed by the parties—to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2021 on the basis of an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the former rules of the chambers or organisations which joined the Swiss Rules or subjected their proceedings to the Swiss Rules. This Practice Note considers responding to a Note of Arbitration under the Swiss Rules. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. Timing of the submission of an Answer to Notice of Arbitration An arbitration under the Swiss Rules administered by the Swiss Arbitration Centre (the SAC) is commenced by a Notice of Arbitration—see Practice Note: Swiss Rules (2021)—starting an arbitration. The respondent must submit an Answer to the Notice of Arbitration within 30 days of receiving the Notice of Arbitration (Swiss Rules, art 4.1) (the Answer). Official...

LCAM Expedited Arbitration Rules (2022)

LCAM Expedited Arbitration Rules (2022) Background Several arbitral institutions and indeed even the UNCITRAL have in recent years developed expedited or fast track rules for low value disputes and for parties looking to avoid a lengthy arbitration process. Typically, these rules provide for the arbitral process to be conducted on a truncated timeline with a final award to be rendered within three or six months of commencement. For a general discussion on Expedited Rules, see Practice Note: Expedited (aka fast-track) arbitration. This note considers LCAM’s Expedited Arbitration Rules (the Expedited Rules), which have been in force since 1 September 2022, see Practice Note: LCIA (2020)—guidance on creation of a fast-track procedure. As Article 1.2 of the Expedited Rules state, they entail ‘…a complete stand-alone documents-only procedure for the resolution of disputes through arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed by LCAM. The procedure administered by LCAM under the Rules is intended to be simple, expedited and cost effective’. The LCAM Expedited Rules stand out from the crowd in the following...

View the related precedents about the arbitration agreement

Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) model arbitration clause

The Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) model arbitration clause is as follows: ‘All disputes or claims arising out of or in connection with this contract, including disputes relating to its validity, breach, termination or

Settlement agreement—arbitration

Settlement agreement—arbitration This settlement Agreement is made on [date] Parties 1 [Name of entity], a [type of entity] with [type of liability] incorporated under the laws of [jurisdiction] with its registered address at [address] and with company number [company number] (Party 1); and 2 [Name of entity], a [type of entity] with [type of liability] incorporated under the laws of [jurisdiction] with its registered address at [address] and with company number [company number] (Party 2), each a ‘Party’ and together the ‘Parties’. Recitals: (A) A dispute has arisen between the parties [add relevant detail to give context to the dispute] (the Dispute). (B) On [date], Party 1 commenced arbitration proceedings against Party 2 (the Arbitration). On [date], the tribunal (comprising [arbitrators]) was appointed (the Tribunal). (C) [Provide further background information available to give context to this Agreement, including a brief description of the Arbitration, the arbitration agreement, the rules/procedures governing the Arbitration, whether the Arbitration is being administered by an arbitral institution and the case...

View the related q&as about the arbitration agreement

Does Part 11 of the CPR apply to Part 7 claims issued in the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC)? If yes, if an Act requires compensation claims to be arbitrated, does Part 11 allow me to apply to have a declaration of the court if such a claim was issued under Part 7?

Does Part 11 of the CPR apply to Part 7 claims issued in the County Court Money Claims Centre (CCMCC)? If yes, if an Act requires compensation claims to be arbitrated, does Part 11 allow me to apply to have a declaration of the court if such a claim was issued under Part 7? CPR 11 CPR 11 concerns how a party may contest jurisdiction, either by arguing that the courts of England and Wales do not have jurisdiction to try a claim or by arguing that they should not exercise such jurisdiction because there is a more appropriate forum for the claim elsewhere (an argument on ‘non conveniens’ grounds). The purpose of having specific procedural rules is to avoid confusion regarding what steps will amount inadvertently to accepting jurisdiction, and to ensure that jurisdictional challenges are raised at an early stage. The procedure set out is that the party seeking to contest jurisdiction must first file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with CPR Part...

What is a duly authenticated original of an arbitral award?

What is a duly authenticated original of an arbitral award? A party seeking recognition and/or enforcement in the courts of England & Wales of an award made in a country which is signatory to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) must provide: • the duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy of it; and • the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy of it Requirements of originals If a party wishes to provide an original of the award, under the Arbitration Act 1996 s 102 (AA 1996, s 102), it must be ‘duly authenticated’. There is no definition of ‘duly authenticated’ in AA 1996. In Lombard-Knight v Rainstorm, the court confirmed that there are no requirements for ‘independent’ certification of an arbitration award either pursuant to the AA 1996 or otherwise and, therefore, the normal rules on certifying copies apply. In practice therefore, a copy of the award (if in English)...

View the related News about the arbitration agreement

High Court has no supervisory jurisdiction over Toronto-seated arbitration (Investcom Global Ltd v PLC Investments Ltd and others)

Arbitration analysis: The High Court declined to continue interim anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions to restrain civil proceedings brought in Liberia in breach of an arbitration agreement, on the basis that the ICC in the pending arbitral proceedings had determined that the seat of the arbitration was Toronto, Canada, and the claimant did not have a good arguable case that the tribunal would overturn that decision and find the seat to be London. The court considered it did not have jurisdiction over the defendants under CPR 62.5(1)(c) or (2A), each of which requires that the seat of the arbitration ‘is or will be’ in England; nor did it find jurisdiction under any gateway in PD6B paragraph 3.1. Written by Hafsa Zayyan, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Arbitration weekly highlights—17 October 2024

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: coverage of arbitration-related decisions from the English courts, from India, France, Singapore and the USA and from an ICSID trbunal and updates from the CJT, ELI, JAMS, AAA and ICDR, IISD, SCCA and UNUM. Also included is news of White & Case and Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) launching the sixth edition of their international arbitration survey, closing on 11 December 2024. All this, and more in our weekly highlights.