Mediation-arbitration (med-arb) meaning

Oswin v Otila; and Ondray Claim No ARB 032/2025 What was the background? This matter arose from a falling-out between Oswin (the Claimant) and Ondray (the Second Defendant) over how to run their joint venture company, Otila (the First Defendant). Oswin owned 49% of the First Defendant’s shares and Ondray 51%. The board could act only by unanimous vote, while shareholder resolutions required a 75% super-majority. When they were unable to agree on management and operations, the company became deadlocked. Their relationship was governed by a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) dated 12 March 2019, which included an arbitration clause calling for DIFC-seated proceedings under the DIFC-LCIA Rules. The Claimant also operated a medical and hazardous waste facility under an Operations and Management Agreement due to expire on 21 August 2025. On 15 August 2025, the Claimant issued a Dispute Notice under clause 21.2 of the JVA, alleging that the Second Defendant was assuming strategic decision-making without proper authority—covering directions on renewal of the O&M Agreement, instruction of external...

Union of India v Vedanta Limited and another , ARB. A. (COMM.) 31/2024, I.A. 30388/2024, I.A. 30389/2024 and I.A. 31248/2024, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4808 What are the practical implications of this case? The DHC’s ruling signals robust judicial respect for arbitration in two distinct respects. In clear terms, it affirms only a narrow ambit for court intervention under section 37(2)(b) read with section 5 of the A&C Act. Further, the Court rejected an appeal assailing the tribunal’s order that had declined an application under section 17 of the A&C Act—an application that, in substance, would have nullified the effect of an interim award—thereby (i) preserving the inviolability of the arbitral award; and (ii) reinforcing that an award of an arbitral tribunal holds force unless stayed or set aside under section 34 of the A&C Act. The judgment also offers practical direction to commercial counterparties facing disputes under a subsisting contract: they may seek a declaratory award from the tribunal on any questions concerning the interpretation of their contract....

Molecular Dynamics, Ltd v Spectrum Dynamics Med , 22 Civ 5167 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. 23 July 2024) (‘Molecular v Spectrum’) What are the practical implications of this case? Molecular v Spectrum recognises that, under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), the courts of the place where an award is ‘made’—that is, the arbitral seat—hold primary jurisdiction and the exclusive authority to set aside, vacate, or modify an arbitral award pursuant to domestic law. Courts in all other Convention States possess only secondary jurisdiction and are confined to declining enforcement, and then only on the limited grounds listed in Article V of the New York Convention... Whether a court is competent under the New York Convention to entertain an application to set aside an arbitral award is a question that concerns that forum’s subject matter jurisdiction. A court exercising secondary jurisdiction therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims seeking to vacate, set aside, or modify a foreign arbitral award. The Court...

When disagreements arise in property transactions, parties typically have a number of avenues for resolving matters, each bringing its own benefits and drawbacks. This Practice Note explores those routes and provides examples of the types of property dispute that may lend themselves to settlement through alternate dispute resolution (ADR). ADR in property disputes It is well recognised that ADR can be an effective method of resolving disputes, especially in property disputes and other commercial transactions. ADR is: efficient cost-effective capable of producing settlements that courts may not be able to replicate more imaginative than judicial awards tailored to the commercial needs of the parties At present, ADR is not compulsory in Scotland, so it is not a necessary pre-requisite to legal proceedings; however, practitioners still have obligations to advise on, and consider, ADR...

ARCHIVED: This archived Practice Note explores the use of mediation‑arbitration (med‑arb) to resolve commercial disputes. It is not maintained and is provided for background purposes only. For general information on alternative dispute resolution (ADR), see ADR and dispute resolution clauses—overview. For guidance on mediation, see Mediation—overview. Med‑arb is suitable for a wide array of commercial disputes. It is appropriate, for example, for international or cross‑border matters in the construction, energy and infrastructure sectors. What is med-arb? Med‑arb is a hybrid, two‑stage ADR mechanism. Typically, the parties authorise the mediator to convert automatically into an arbitrator and to issue a legally binding arbitral award if the mediation does not achieve a settlement of the dispute. The arbitration stage is legally binding, and the arbitrator’s award is enforceable like one made in standard arbitration proceedings, a feature that is generally advantageous. There are various possible variants to the med‑arb model, including having both a mediator and an arbitrator present for an opening session. The mediator then conducts the mediation, and...

Introduction The 2026 AIAC Rules mark a notable step forward from the 2023 AIAC Rules. Whereas the 2023 framework incorporated the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (revised in 2021), the 2026 edition moves away from that approach. Consequently, the 2026 AIAC Rules now function as a more unified, self-contained rule set and introduce the principal changes outlined below... AIAC Court of Arbitration A key reform in the 2026 AIAC Rules is the creation of the AIAC Court of Arbitration, led by a President and supported by a Registrar. This replaces the Director-focused structure of the 2023 AIAC Rules. Under the new arrangement, core responsibilities—such as appointing arbitrators, deciding challenges, and determining consolidation—are entrusted to the AIAC Court and/or its President. The Registrar manages the day-to-day conduct of arbitrations. This clear separation of roles brings the AIAC in line with governance models used by other leading international arbitral institutions. The AIAC Court is also responsible for a technical review of all draft awards, excluding Emergency Awards...