Arbitral Tribunal meaning

The Checklist seeks to outline the principal actions that arbitrators should consider across the entire course of a proceeding, beginning with appointment and the first procedural order and ending with delivery of the award and completion of their obligations. It offers direction on the types of provisions that may feature in procedural orders addressing data security throughout the duration and lifespan of an arbitration. Please be mindful, in light of the evolving cybersecurity ecosystem and applicable laws and regulations, that this is not an exhaustive catalogue. Rather, the checklist functions as guidance on best practice and clarifies the considerations that may arise at each milestone. Arbitration phase: pre-appointment of the Tribunal Legal Steps Safeguard your digital identity so you are seen as independent and impartial, notwithstanding the difficulties posed by an online presence. Refer to: Checklist for Arbitrators on the Use of Social Media and the Duty of Impartiality—the cybersecurity approach to arbitration. Technical Steps Adopt appropriate cybersecurity practices...

This Checklist offers a concise examination of the hands-on elements involved in the tribunal secretary’s role. Its scope is to steer legal practitioners on considerations when choosing and collaborating with a tribunal secretary. The Checklist expresses no opinion on whether appointing a tribunal secretary is suitable; that determination lies with the parties and the arbitral tribunal case by case—see Practice Note: Tribunal secretaries in international arbitration—the advantages and disadvantages. It draws on the legal framework (primarily arbitration rules), case law/jurisprudence, soft law (guidelines and practice notes), professional experience, and prevailing market practices. Taxonomy Tribunal secretary is an umbrella term for a person who supports an arbitral tribunal (a sole arbitrator or a panel) during arbitration proceedings, assisting the tribunal throughout the conduct of proceedings as the arbitration process advances further...

This Checklist This checklist reviews the procedural and related issues the tribunal is expected to address at a preliminary meeting in arbitration, whether the process is ad hoc or under an arbitral institution. Matters typically cover jurisdictional objections, applications for interim measures or the trial of preliminary points, setting schedules for the progress of elements of the reference, and organising how all the evidence will be exchanged and presented. Whatever the forum—ad hoc or institutional—and whichever institutional rules govern, the tribunal will usually convene a preliminary meeting soon after it is formed. The parties themselves (rather than their advisers) are generally not obliged to attend this session, although it is advantageous if they do, as they will meet the tribunal and confront the opposing team at an early juncture. In international cases, it may also be one of the few chances for everyone involved to be physically together before the main hearing, and it may provide a window for separate settlement discussions. Whether that is suitable can depend on...

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and another [2024] EWHC 708 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on how the ‘reasonable diligence’ condition in AA 1996, s 73(1) operates. It warns parties in arbitration to remain vigilant to unfolding factual matters that may demand further enquiry, in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement and maintain an arguable case that is not rendered time-barred under AA 1996, s 73(1). It also emphasises the elevated duty of care owed by investment arbitration practitioners when advising clients in arbitral proceedings, so as to avoid claims of insufficient diligence in the conduct of jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal. What was the background? ...

The team behind arbitrateAD The registry Kristin Campbell-Wilson has now taken up the role of executive director at the newly established Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre. Bringing more than twenty years’ international arbitration expertise, she most recently served at the SCC Arbitration Institute, first as deputy secretary general and subsequently as secretary general. Her selection clearly underscores arbitrateAD’s strong focus on streamlined case administration in practice. It likewise marks a positive step for gender balance within the sector. The court The arbitrateAD Court (the Court) exercises oversight of arbitrations conducted under the arbitrateAD Rules. Under the arbitrateAD Rules, the Court is charged with appointing arbitrators, deciding challenges to arbitrators, and scrutinising arbitral awards, among other duties and responsibilities. The Court comprises 15 leading international arbitration practitioners, with women accounting for nearly half. This varied bench has wide geographic reach, with members based across 11 jurisdictions. They include five figures from the Middle East region, four originating from the UAE, plus ten others spanning Africa, Europe, Asia...

What was the background to the dispute? The arbitration stems from an actio ut singuli brought by Mr [J], a minority investor in Petrobras, against the União, seeking compensation for harm allegedly sustained by Petrobras after the appointment of board members reportedly linked to the Brazilian ‘Lava Jato’ corruption affair. Petrobras is a Brazilian mixed-economy entity engaged in the production, exploration, refining and sale of oil and gas. Its by-laws include an arbitration clause. On that footing, MUDES launched CAM arbitration proceedings in March 2017, and Mr [J] filed separate CAM proceedings in October 2017, both directed at the União. The União contested the clause’s applicability, denied being bound to arbitrate, and challenged the objective arbitrability of the case, invoking its public-law prerogatives. The two proceedings were consolidated in April 2018. On 15 January 2020, the arbitral tribunal issued an interim award confirming its jurisdiction. On 26 January 2023, the President of the Paris Judicial Court granted exequatur in France to the partial award...

This Practice Note examines the powers of the arbitral tribunal under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (the UNCITRAL Rules). For an introduction to the UNCITRAL Rules, see Practice Note: UNCITRAL Rules—background and introduction. For guidance on appointing the tribunal, see Practice Note: UNCITRAL Rules—appointment of the arbitral tribunal. A core feature of the UNCITRAL arbitration framework is the authority vested in the tribunal. The UNCITRAL Rules grant the arbitral tribunal extensive powers over the management and timetable of the proceedings, evidence, the making of awards, interim measures and the allocation of costs. General power of the arbitral tribunal The tribunal may conduct the proceedings in such manner as it deems appropriate, provided it treats the parties equally and affords each party a reasonable opportunity to present its case (UNCITRAL Rules, Article 17(1)). The broad discretion conferred on the tribunal is a fundamental tenet of UNCITRAL arbitration and is derived from the original 1976 UNCITRAL Rules...

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...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and not kept up to date. Practical implications of West Tankers In short, the current position arising from the West Tankers saga (so far) is: Any EU Member State court seised of proceedings must rule on its own jurisdiction to determine the dispute. Under Brussels I and Brussels I (recast), courts of another Member State cannot remove that competence from it. An arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to award damages for breach of an obligation to arbitrate. Where jurisdiction is disputed (as it often is), consider advising clients to obtain a standalone final award addressing jurisdiction at the outset, and then seek to have it recognised and enforced by the court (the application would be made under the procedure set out in CPR 62). This should prevent a conflicting court judgment taking precedence, on the basis of issue estoppel. Thereafter, the parties can proceed to the liability and quantum issues within the arbitration. West Tankers—the...

[ Date ] [ Respondent's Counsel ] [ Address ] Dear [ insert organisation name ] [ Arbitral Institution ] Arbitration [ Arbitration No. ]: [ Claimant ] v. [ Respondent ]—appointment of the sole arbitrator In accordance with clause [ insert clause ] of the [ arbitration agreement ], we hereby write concerning the appointment of the sole arbitrator. To ensure this process is handled promptly and even-handedly, we suggest the most efficient way forward would be for the parties to reach a joint agreement on a suitable candidate...

Existing disputes If a dispute has already arisen but there is no arbitration agreement between the parties, or the parties intend to amend an existing dispute resolution clause so as to adopt LCIA arbitration, the following wording is recommended for use: ‘Following the emergence of a dispute between the parties concerning [ insert a brief description of the dispute, including, if appropriate, an identification of the contract(s) ], the parties agree that such dispute shall be referred to, and finally and conclusively determined by, arbitration under the LCIA Rules. The tribunal shall comprise [ [ a sole arbitrator OR three arbitrators ] ]. The seat (legal place) of the arbitration shall be [ insert city and/or country ]. The language of the arbitral proceedings shall be [ specify language ]. The governing law of the contract [ is/shall be ] the substantive law of [ specify jurisdiction ]’...

In the matter of the arbitration act 1996 And In the matter of an arbitration Between: [ Name of Claimant ] Claimant –and– [ Name of Respondent/Applicant ] Respondent/Applicant 1 This application is brought by the Respondent pursuant to section 30 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The Respondent within the arbitration now applies for a determination from the tribunal that it lacks substantive jurisdiction to hear or decide the dispute which is the subject of the arbitral proceedings commenced by the Claimant because [ insert reasons for lack of jurisdiction, eg that the dispute is outside the scope of the parties’ agreement to arbitrate ]. 2 References to page numbers in this application are to the pages in the paginated bundle supplied with this application...