In practice, assuming that the enforcement procedure is not contested, enforcement should be a matter of weeks and the costs should be relatively low. Courts reserve the discretion to enforce an arbitral award that has been set aside or suspended by the courts at the seat of arbitration,67 but in practice this is quite rare. In case B/A,54 the General Court held that an error committed by a court in the application of the chosen law does not give rise to a lack of jurisdiction on the merits. The House of Lords ruled in Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v. Privalov55 that it had to be assumed that the parties to an arbitration agreement were rational businessmen, that all disputes arising from the relationship into which they had entered or purportedly entered should be settled by the same court. This hypothesis can only be ruled out if the arbitration agreement clearly indicates that the parties intended to exclude certain matters from the arbitration. How are arbitration agreements enforced in your jurisdiction? What is the position of national courts on arbitration agreements? The parties to arbitration in England and Wales are free to agree on the number of arbitrators, the appointment of arbitrators, and the appointment of a president or arbitrator as an arbitral tribunal.21 The parties may also impose restrictive restrictions on the appointment of arbitrators. The case of Jivraj v. Hashwani before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is an example of the view that the parties are free (by agreement) to impose a necessary criterion or qualification for the appointment of arbitrators.22 In the absence of an express procedure for the appointment of the tribunal in a multi-party agreement in the arbitration agreement or arbitration rules chosen by the parties, The Arbitration Act allows a party to apply to the tribunal for an appointment or to conduct the appointment procedure (section 18(2)).
Pursuant to Article 15(3), a dispute is settled by a single arbitrator if there is no agreement between the parties on the number of arbitrators (for example. B expressly in their arbitration agreement or through institutional rules). There are no standard requirements for referee characteristics. England (London in particular) remains one of the world`s leading centres of international arbitration and is often chosen as the seat of arbitration.2 Under section 24 of the 1996 Act, the party to the arbitration may request the tribunal to dismiss an arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator is neither impartial nor independent; does not have the qualifications; did not conduct the procedure correctly; and shows mental or physical disability. The tribunal does not exercise this power where the tribunal or arbitral institution has the power to dismiss arbitrators unless it is satisfied that the parties have exhausted recourse to that institution or person.27 The various subsequent provisions on the conduct of the arbitration proceedings are largely focused on this overriding obligation. The law states: « The tribunal shall discharge this general duty in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings, in its decisions on matters of procedure and evidence and in the exercise of all other powers conferred upon it. » [6] The second version provides that the investor may submit to investment arbitration after three months. The parties may agree on one of three institutions: ICSID, the ICC International Court of Arbitration or an ad hoc court established under UNCITRAL rules. If the parties fail to reach an agreement within three months, the investor may submit the dispute to arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules. The IBA`s 2013 Party Representation Guidelines are another set of guidelines to apply a uniform standard for international arbitration counsel. However, these policies are only applicable if the parties expressly agree to them for a particular dispute.
Under the Arbitration Act 1996, the parties are free to choose their arbitrators. Arbitral tribunals are generally composed of one or three arbitrators (Article 15). The Arbitration Act does not contain any express provision on which disputes may not be submitted to arbitration. However, under the common law, there are certain disputes that cannot be resolved, including: English law recognizes the existence of a legal privilege, a right that allows an individual to object to the mandatory disclosure of certain categories of information. However, the 1996 Act is silent on the existence and treatment of privilege issues. In most cases, the question of which rules of privilege to apply to a particular set of communications is decided by the court.14 If the parties agree, the court may also follow the rules of the IBA. In England and Wales, courts generally take a pro-arbitral approach and advocate the enforcement of international arbitral awards.68 Courts very rarely refuse to enforce arbitral awards on grounds of public policy.69 English courts will be prepared to apply clauses at several levels (i.e. a number of growing dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation or arbitration) as long as the language of these clauses is clear and concise.
.
