Administered Arbitration meaning

ARCHIVED: This Checklist is archived and no longer maintained. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) Numerous arbitral organisations have addressed the coronavirus pandemic by issuing practical guidance and adjusting standard procedures and ways of working. To understand how this content and related arbitration proceedings might be affected, see Practice Note: Arbitral organisations and coronavirus (COVID-19)—practical impact [Archived] [Archived]. For further information, see: Coronavirus (COVID-19) and arbitration—overview. HKIAC’s Administered Arbitration Rules are widely adopted institutional rules, administered by HKIAC in Hong Kong, and applied globally. This Checklist outlines the arbitration process under the 2013 HKIAC Rules. For guidance on the 2018 HKIAC Rules, refer to the ‘Related documents’. Preliminary steps Determine the available claims and any counterclaims. Assess the scope of the arbitration clause and whether those claims and counterclaims can be resolved by arbitration. Select your preferred arbitrator, either for sole appointment or as your party nominee on a three-member tribunal. Note any prospective limitation issues. ...

On 1 March 2025, the updated Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Centre of the Lima Chamber of Commerce (the CCL Arbitration Rules 2025) took effect. This version adds provisions aligned with international best practice and the frameworks of leading arbitral institutions. Nonetheless, the regulation seems unfinished: gaps remain that should be closed to secure predictable and efficient CCL-administered arbitrations. This article examines the key changes on scrutiny of awards, residual appointment of arbitrators, procedural calendars, and time limits. Scrutiny of the award In step with institutions such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the CCL Arbitration Rules 2025 create a scrutiny process for arbitral awards. This acts as a quality control tool, aimed at lowering annulment risk by ensuring the award’s formal and substantive robustness. Scrutiny is not mandatory; it depends on the parties’ agreement and the CCL’s approval. The Rules do not specify criteria for accepting or refusing scrutiny, leaving the choice to the CCL’s discretion...

That urgency is visible both in evolving best practice—like adding AI clauses to terms of reference and procedural orders—as well as in the first tranche of objections claiming improper dependence on AI. A 9 December 2025 ruling by the US District Court for the Southern District of California, Lapaglia v Valve, 3:25-cv-00833, shows how even untested assertions that an arbitrator ‘ghostwrote’ an award with AI can bleed into collateral litigation, trigger due process worries, and pose reputational exposure. It is an early warning that clearly underscores the pressing need for explicit AI protocols, human‑in‑the‑loop safeguards, and transparent disclosures aligned with party expectations and applicable law. This article summarises Lapaglia v Valve and distils practical guidance from earlier, closely analogous practice on tribunal delegation and nascent generative AI recommendations, setting out a clear, forward‑looking framework for what tribunals and counsel should appropriately embed in their arbitration engagement rules now to reduce the risk of AI‑based challenges later. Lapaglia v Valve Lapaglia concerned a consumer arbitration administered by the American...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad-hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments New Law Journal New and updated content Daily and weekly news alerts Arbitration in England & Wales Court of Appeal—anti-suit injunctions and injunctions generally not available against states unless one of the exceptions in section 13 of the State Immunity Act 1978 applies In UK P&I Club N.V. v Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the doctrine of state immunity. Refusing an anti-suit injunction in a commercial dispute with Venezuela, the court underscored the proper objective of adherence to international law: advancing comity and sound relations among states by recognising the sovereignty of other nations. It further held that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) should, so far as practicable, be construed in concert with the wider corpus of international law of which it forms a component, including norms governing the...

This Practice Note sets out guidance on arbitral awards in proceedings under the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) Administered Arbitration Rules 2018 (2018 HKIAC Rules; HKIAC 2018). As explained in Practice Note: HKIAC (2018)—the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules—application and key features, the 2018 HKIAC Rules generally govern HKIAC arbitrations commenced on or after 1 November 2018, save where the parties agree otherwise; for HKIAC arbitrations begun before 1 November 2018, the 2013 HKIAC Rules will generally apply unless the parties agreed otherwise. For an overview of the HKIAC and how it is organised, see Practice Note: HKIAC—background to and structure of the institution. Awards in HKIAC arbitrations In line with most institutional regimes, under the 2018 HKIAC Rules a tribunal may render interim, interlocutory, or partial awards and, in addition to a final award, may issue interim awards as to costs (HKIAC 2018, art 35.1). Where the tribunal has more than one arbitrator, any award or other ruling is to be made by a majority. Failing a...

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the overall structure of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (the UNCITRAL Rules). The UNCITRAL Rules occupy a significant role in contemporary arbitration practice. They are crafted for ad hoc international commercial arbitrations—proceedings not administered by an arbitral institution and, typically, not conducted under that institution’s rules. The Rules may likewise be employed in investor–state arbitrations commenced under a treaty, such as a bilateral investment treaty, where the treaty permits arbitration conducted under those rules. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the UNCITRAL Rules govern arbitration agreements concluded on or after 15 August 2010, ie the date the revised Rules took effect. The earlier 1976 UNCITRAL Rules continue to apply to all arbitration agreements entered into before that date. Both the 1976 and 2010 UNCITRAL Rules are separate from UNCITRAL’s Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted in 1985 and revised in 2006, which has been adopted (often with modifications) by more than 50 jurisdictions—see Practice Note: The UNCITRAL...

Arbitration clauses Arbitration clauses stipulate that disputes are resolved by a designated arbitral tribunal appointed for the purpose, and may feature in both domestic and cross‑border matters. Arbitration may proceed on an ad hoc footing—following a chosen set of rules, for example the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Terms, and/or the applicable national arbitration statute—or be administered by an arbitral institution, ordinarily in accordance with that institution’s own procedural rules. A broad range of institutional rulebooks is available for incorporation into arbitration agreements; prominent options include, in particular, the International Chamber of Commerce’s ICC Rules and the London Court of International Arbitration’s LCIA Rules. By way of illustration, this Practice Note, applying the law of England and Wales, considers the LCIA’s recommended arbitration clause for future disputes arising, while noting that the points raised may equally bear on other institutional arbitration clauses...

This document serves as a precedent notice of arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th edition) 2016 (2016 SIAC Rules). The 2016 SIAC Rules govern arbitrations commenced on or after 1 August 2016, unless the parties have agreed otherwise... In the matter of an arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Parties [ insert name of Claimant ] — Claimant(s) [ insert name(s) of Respondent ] — Respondent(s) This Notice of Arbitration (the Notice) is lodged and filed in accordance with rule 3 of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (6th Edition, 1 August 2016) (SIAC Rules)... Demand By this Notice, the Claimant requests that the dispute(s) with the Respondent(s) as outlined below be submitted to arbitration...

ARCHIVED : This Precedent has been archived and is no longer maintained. CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) : Numerous arbitral organisations have addressed the coronavirus pandemic by issuing practical guidance and/or adapting their standard procedures and working practices. For details and updates on how this content and related arbitration proceedings could be affected, see Practice Note: Arbitral organisations and coronavirus (COVID-19)—practical impact [Archived] [Archived]. For further information, see: Coronavirus (COVID-19) and arbitration—overview...

ARCHIVED : This Precedent has been archived and is not maintained . Note: This Precedent is intended for use in relation to arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre 2013 (Fifth edition) (2013 SIAC Rules). The 2013 SIAC Rules apply to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 April 2013, save where the parties have agreed otherwise. In the matter of an arbitration administered by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Parties 1 [ insert name of Claimant ] Claimant(s) And 2 [ insert name(s) of Respondent ] Respondent(s) This Notice of Arbitration (Notice) is made and lodged pursuant to Rule 3 of the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (Fifth Edition, 1 April 2013) (SIAC Rules). Demand: By means of this Notice, the Claimant requires that its dispute(s) with the Respondent(s), as outlined below, be referred to arbitration...