the arbitral tribunal (arbitrator(s)) 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...

ARCHIVED: This Checklist is archived and no longer maintained.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. ...

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? ...

Narendra Thillainathan v Mohomed Khan and others [SC Appeal Nos 200/2018, 200A/2018, 200B/2018 & 200C/2018] Supreme Court of Sri Lanka What are the practical implications of this case? Section 27 of the Act, addressing the rectification of arbitral awards, derives from Article 33 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. Jurisprudence remains sparse on both the ambit and the process governing a tribunal’s power to correct its award. First, the Court examined whether the amendments ran counter to the tribunal’s own reasoning in the Original Award, and whether they fell outside ‘errors in computation, clerical or typographical slips, omissions, or comparable mistakes’. The Court concluded that this argument was legally misguided: the Tribunal had never dismissed the claim for the Return sought in the Statement of Claim, as asserted by the Borrowers. The failure to include the Return was, therefore, a plain omission by the Tribunal. Secondly, the judgment sheds light on the procedural steps to be followed when entertaining an application to correct an award....

The justices declined to take up the petition from Wenbin Que, who sought to overturn a Ninth Circuit ruling that left him liable for a US$55m arbitral award in favour of fellow Chinese national Lihua Song after a soured investment, arising from a failed deal. Que alleges a ‘rogue’ member of a three-arbitrator panel walked out of an active hearing to wander his flat, use the toilet, and embark on a ‘misadventure’ with an unrelated woman that included travelling by car and boarding a train. He argued that courts have recognised that bias or misconduct by one participant on a multi-member tribunal can infect the entire proceeding. According to the petition, the Ninth Circuit accepted that this conduct was ‘concerning’, but set that concern aside on the basis that ‘the remaining two arbitrators behaved properly’. That two-out-of-three rationale is erroneous, the filing contends, and requires correction...

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...

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration, updated on 1 June 2021 (the Swiss Rules), apply—unless the parties agree otherwise—to any arbitration begun on or after 1 June 2021 under an arbitration agreement referring either to the Swiss Rules or to the prior rules of chambers or organisations that joined the Swiss Rules or brought their proceedings within them. This Practice Note examines the appointment of the arbitral tribunal under the Swiss Rules. The provisions regulating constitution of the tribunal are, for the most part, consistent with those in most other widely used arbitration rules, though there are a handful of particularities. For guidance on the 2012 Swiss Rules, see: Swiss Rules arbitration—overview. This note highlights similarities and specific features when constituting tribunals, within the context of these Swiss Rules and notes areas of difference. Number of arbitrators Under the Swiss Rules, the parties may decide the size of the arbitral tribunal, either within their arbitration clause or subsequently. While that choice rests with the parties, the Arbitration Court...

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...

[ 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...