UUÂãÁÄÖ±²¥

View the related checklists about Seat of arbitration

Is the award complete?—checklist

Is the award complete?—checklist On receipt of the arbitral award, parties should check that it is 'complete' in the sense of meeting formal requirements, noting their importance for the purposes of any challenges and/or appeals in respect of the award or its recognition and enforcement. The following Checklist, while not exhaustive, sets out some of the key considerations: • Is it in writing? • Do the relevant rules allow for electronic transmission (see eg LCIA Arbitration Rules art 26.7) • Has it been signed by all the arbitrations or those assenting to it? (Note that several sets of institutional rules (including the LCIA Arbitration Rules (art 26.6)) provide for signing by only the majority or the presiding arbitrator in certain circumstances) • Does it state the seat of the arbitration by city and country? • Does it state the date it was made? • Are there any specific requirements for the award stipulated in the arbitration

View the related practice notes about Seat of arbitration

Interim remedies and arbitration in Oman

Interim remedies and arbitration in Oman Akin to other civil law jurisdictions, especially those located in the Middle East, interim remedies are generally less readily available than in common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales or the United States. For arbitrations seated in the Sultanate of Oman (‘Oman’), the Oman Arbitration Act (Royal Decree No. 47 of 1997, as amended), which came into force on 28 June 1997 and was amended in 2007, acts as the lex arbitri. The Oman Arbitration Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law. The Oman Arbitration Act is supplemented by the Civil Procedure Law (Royal Decree No. 29 of 2002) and Oman’s adoption of the New York Convention (Royal Decree No. 36 of 1998). Significant headway has been made in Oman in recent years with the introduction of the Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre (‘OAC’) in 2018 (established under Royal Decree No. 26 of 2018) and the issuance of its Arbitration Rules in 2020 (OAC Decision No. 8 of 2020). The Oman Arbitration...

pinqDR—guidance notes for arbitrators

pinqDR—guidance notes for arbitrators This Practice Note provides practical advice for arbitrators appointed to conduct arbitrations on pinqDR’s online platform. It should be read in conjunction with the pinqDR Rules. References to Articles are to Articles of the Rules. Capitalised terms shall have the meanings given to them in the Rules. Key principles Speed—pinqDR arbitration is subject to strict time limits. The entire process must be concluded within 8 weeks of Commencement (see Art. 1.3, 5, 7 and in particular 7.2). Proactivity—pinqDR arbitrators will need to be far more proactive than is typical in traditional arbitration procedures. Immediately following appointment, the arbitrator will need to review the Claim and the Response and direct the parties to what additional information (evidence or submissions) the arbitrator needs to produce the Award. Efficiency—pinqDR arbitrators are not expected to produce long Awards. They must comply with Art. 8. Arbitrators are expected to begin the preparation of the Award immediately upon receipt of the Claim (Art. 3) and Response (Art. 4) and focus on the...

View the related precedents about Seat of arbitration

Procedural order for a remote online hearing in international arbitration

Procedural order for a remote online hearing in international arbitration PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. [insert number] Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Tribunal orders as follows: 1 Hearing by video-conference 1.1 The [insert hearing description] (the Hearing) shall be conducted by video-conference, using [insert name of video-conferencing platform] as the video-conferencing platform (the Platform). The Tribunal considers that this will provide the parties with a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard. 2 [Prior directions concerning the Hearing] 2.1 [This Procedural Order supersedes [insert references to any prior directions to the extent inconsistent with this Procedural Order or no longer applicable].] 2.2 [[Insert references to any provisions of prior Procedural Orders or other directions by the Tribunal concerning the Hearing that are to continue to apply] shall continue to apply.] 3 Hosting [and technical support] 3.1 [[The institutional case manager/tribunal secretary/case monitor/other person] shall act as the host for the Hearing (the Host). The Host shall liaise with the Tribunal and parties to ensure that the Hearing...

Limited partnership agreement

Limited partnership agreement This limited partnership Agreement is made on [insert day and month] 20 [insert year] Parties 1 [insert name of general partner] of [insert address] (the General Partner); and 2 Each of the persons whose names are listed in Schedule 1, Part B. BACKGROUND (A) The Limited Partnership has been registered as a limited partnership in England under the LPA 1907 with number LP [insert number]. (B) The General Partner has agreed to be the general partner of the Limited Partnership and manage the business of the Limited Partnership and the Limited Partners have agreed to make Contributions to the Limited Partnership on the terms set out below. (C) The General Partner and the Limited Partners wish for the Limited Partnership to carry on the Business and to agree to regulate the affairs of the Limited Partnership on the terms set out below. The parties agree: 1 Definitions and interpretation 1.1 Definitions In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: Accountants • means [insert name of...

View the related q&as about Seat of arbitration

Will the Malaysian courts recognise and enforce an award issued by an arbitral tribunal seated in Singapore, where the period for setting aside the award before the Singapore courts has not expired?

Will the Malaysian courts recognise and enforce an award issued by an arbitral tribunal seated in Singapore, where the period for setting aside the award before the Singapore courts has not expired? Malaysia is a party to the New York convention and will recognise and enforce an award provided that the award is final and binding. In Malaysia, section 38 of the Arbitration Act 2005 (AA 2005) gives recognition to arbitration awards made in an arbitration, either where the seat of arbitration is in Malaysia or where the award is issued from a foreign state. Such awards will be recognised by the Malaysian courts as being binding and enforceable in Malaysia and be entered as a judgment of the Malaysian courts, subject only to limited circumstances where such awards may be set aside, which includes where the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a court at the seat (AA 2005, s 39(a)(vii)). For more

Can a multi-tier dispute resolution (DR) clause provide for mediation between the parties in one location followed by in the absence of settlement of the dispute and arbitration in another location? Can a DR clause provide for arbitration and court litigation?

Can a multi-tier dispute resolution (DR) clause provide for mediation between the parties in one location followed by in the absence of settlement of the dispute and arbitration in another location? Can a DR clause provide for arbitration and court litigation? Multi-tier dispute resolution clauses Contractual parties are free to agree, subject to relevant law governing validity/enforceability, that relevant disputes under their contract shall be resolved by mediation followed by, in the event that mediation is not successful, binding arbitration. Indeed, many model alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clauses provide for such an approach—see for example, Mediation followed by arbitration: Chartered Institute of Arbitrators: Atkin's Court Forms [214]. The fact that parties agree for mediation to take place in one location and for arbitration to take place in another is, once again, subject to relevant applicable law, a matter of party autonomy, although such approach will have logistical challenges for the parties and they should consider issues such as, for example, what will be the law of...

View the related News about Seat of arbitration

Arbitrators’ disclosure duties in focus—insights from the Aiteo arbitration awards challenge (Aiteo v Shell & 8 Others)

Arbitration analysis: This case involved Aiteo Eastern E & P Company Ltd (‘Aiteo’), an African energy company, challenging four partial awards under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). Aiteo alleged serious irregularity based on apparent bias by one of the tribunal members, Rt Hon Dame Elizabeth Gloster DBE (‘DEG’). The court found that there was apparent bias which constitutes serious irregularity, but emphasized that Aiteo had to demonstrate substantial injustice for the challenge to succeed. Ultimately, the court remitted one of the four partial awards for reconsideration while dismissing the application concerning the other three. This judgment underscores critical issues related to the appearance of bias in arbitration, particularly regarding arbitrators' disclosure obligations. It highlights the importance of transparency in disclosing potential conflicts of interest and the duties of parties in the selection of arbitrators. The decision serves as a guide for practitioners on how to effectively challenge awards under s. 68(2)(a) of the 1996 Act and addresses the nature of arbitral institutions' decisions. Written by Toheeb...

Arbitration weekly highlights—26 September 2024

This week's edition of Arbitration weekly highlights includes: analyses of a decision from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; coverage of arbitration related decisions from India, Singapore, the USA and the UAE; updates from QICCA, DIAC,, IBA, FINRA, ICCC, ISTAC and NYSBA and news of the announcement of the Young Arbitration Practitioner of the Year Award. All this, and more in our weekly highlights.