Party Autonomy meaning

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...

J.B. de M & others v C.C.B.C & others, Appeal No 1110671-64.2023.8.26.0100, Court of Appeals of the State of São Paulo (TJSP) What are the practical implications of this case? Viewed pragmatically, the judgment carries at least three notable consequences. It confirms and strengthens the reading, already reflected in precedent and academic commentary, that under Brazilian law applications to annul foreign arbitral awards must be brought before the courts at the seat. It further indicates that, where the parties opt for a foreign seat of arbitration, they cannot vest Brazilian courts with competence to hear annulment claims by relying on forum selection clauses. This latter point is significant because, although such a clause would, in principle, be admissible under Article 22, item III, of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, the TJSP’s approach narrows party autonomy over jurisdiction for actions seeking to annul foreign arbitral awards. Practitioners advising under Brazilian law should, therefore, be alert to this interpretation...

Aercap Ireland Capital Designated Activity Company and others v PJSC Insurance Company Universalna and others [2024] EWHC 1365 (Comm) It is well-established that the English courts will halt proceedings commenced in England contrary to an exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to a foreign court, unless the claimant demonstrates that there are strong reasons for the claim to continue here. That stance reflects compelling policy considerations favouring the sanctity of forum agreements, including party autonomy, the upholding of bargains and commercial certainty. In this dispute, the court found no such compelling reasons, with Judge Andrew Henshaw deciding that the claims should instead proceed in Ukraine. Having concluded that the exclusive jurisdiction clause was valid and applicable, Judge Henshaw assessed the claimants’ submissions—among them the procedural challenges of trying the case in Ukraine—as no more than foreseeable matters of convenience, which fell short of the strong reasons threshold. This piece reviews the bases on which the claimants, including Aercap, sought to rely and the judge’s analysis of why those bases did not...

UT overturns case management directions relating to witness evidence (L Rowland & Co (Retail) Ltd v HMRC) L Rowland & Co (Retail) Ltd v HMRC [2026] UKUT 130 (TCC). The substantive appeal concerns whether approximately 1,400 locum pharmacists engaged by the taxpayer were self-employed or employees for PAYE and NICs. The taxpayer maintains the locums were self-employed, while HMRC contends they were employees. The taxpayer declined to permit HMRC access to the locums as witnesses and indicated it would seek judicial review of any approach by HMRC. In case management, the FTT directed the identification of ten further locums as witnesses of fact to give evidence in the appeal, noting the taxpayer had produced only two locum witness statements. The directions further contemplated that, if the taxpayer did not call those witnesses voluntarily, the FTT itself could issue witness summonses to secure their attendance. Once that additional witness evidence was available, HMRC was directed to provide further and better particulars of its case on the central question of whether...

This Practice Note outlines the Hague Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts, referred to as the HCCH Principles and previously called the Hague Principles. It is an international instrument intended to address cross-border commercial dealings. It operates across jurisdictions to support cross-border commercial activity worldwide in practice. What are the HCCH Principles on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts? The HCCH Principles address matters of private international law (conflict of laws) concerning contracts. Modern legal systems maintain their own domestic private international law rules, which commonly vary from one State to another. The possibility of divergent decisions and differing readings of private international law rules (including rules on choice of law) creates significant uncertainty for global trade and commerce. For many years, avoiding inconsistent judicial outcomes has been a core preoccupation of international lawyers. That concern has spurred, not least, international organisations such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) to pursue the unification of private international law. With 92 members (91...

Note: the Swiss cases mentioned below are not included in LexisNexis® reports. Introduction Swiss domestic and Swiss international arbitration Swiss law draws a line between domestic and international forms of ‘Swiss’ arbitration. The former is set out in Part 3 of the Swiss Code of Civil Procedure of 19 December 2008 (the ‘Swiss CCP’; minor revisions to Part 3 most recently took effect on 1 January 2025), while the latter is governed by Chapter 12 of the Swiss Private International Law Act of 18 December 1987 (the ‘PILA’; overhauled in 2021). Each framework addresses largely the same topics as the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration of 1985, as amended in 2006 (the ‘Model Law’), yet neither follows the Model Law’s architecture, preserving their autonomy and distinctive character. Swiss arbitration legislation applies solely to proceedings seated in Switzerland, which necessitates rules for fixing the seat. Article 176(3) PILA therefore provides, aiming to cater for all eventualities: ‘The seat of the arbitration shall be determined by the parties...

In arbitration, jurisdiction signifies the arbitral tribunal’s authority to decide issues that go to the merits of the dispute (see: Jurisdiction and admissibility in dispute resolution clauses). Accordingly, jurisdiction is a prerequisite for an arbitral tribunal to rule on a case... General principles of arbitral tribunal jurisdiction under Macau Arbitration Law Jurisdiction established by agreement—party autonomy In arbitration, the tribunal’s jurisdiction derives entirely from the parties’ consent. Their arbitration agreement(s) both grant the power to resolve disputes and delineate its scope. Although an arbitral tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction, it is empowered to assess that question itself under the general rule of Kompetenz-Kompetenz... The principle of Kompetenz Kompetenz The arbitral tribunal may determine its own jurisdiction and decide any challenge to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This principle is recognised in virtually all arbitration regimes, and Macau is no exception. Under Article 46 of the Macau Arbitration Law, the arbitral tribunal is competent to decide whether it has jurisdiction to determine the...