What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint - amazonia.fiocruz.br

What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint - certainly

The Ordinance introduces provisions to stay the enforcement of arbitral awards tainted by fraud, and deletes certain provisions from the Act relating to qualification and accreditation of arbitrators. An important change introduced by the Ordinance concerns the power of the Indian court to stay enforcement of an award where an application has been made to set it aside. The stay shall continue until the application to set aside the award is decided. By way of background, under Section 34 of the Act, a party to an arbitral award made in India may apply to the Indian court to have it set aside on the grounds, amongst other things, that the award conflicts with the public policy of India, which includes circumstances where the making of the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption. Prior to , Section 36 of the Act was applied such that enforcement of an award would be stayed where an application was made under Section 34 until that application had been decided. This incentivised losing parties to challenge awards on any grounds to prevent their enforcement. The amendment is deemed to have been inserted from 23 October , and applies to all court cases arising out of arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whether the arbitration or court proceedings were commenced before or after this date. The Ordinance notes that the change was made to address concerns raised by stakeholders. It will be interesting to see how judges deal with such challenges. While this amendment addresses challenges to awards made in India, it should not apply to the enforcement of foreign awards under a separate part of the Act, although the Indian court has the discretion under Section 48 to refuse enforcement of a foreign award where it finds that the award was induced or affected by fraud.

What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint Video

Arbitration: An Alternative to Litigation for Dispute Resolution What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint

Mondaq uses cookies on this website.

Video Details

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy. On 9 Octoberthe U.

The Supreme Court's decision available here settles a vexed question of law that has given rise to conflicting English Court of Appeal authority. The Supreme Court's thorough judgment, which looked extensively to international commentators and authorities, including Gary Born's and Professor Albert Jan van den Berg's treatises, provides welcome certainty as to how English courts will determine the law governing the arbitration agreement in future cases. The decision is also noteworthy for its express endorsement of the validation principle as applied to the law governing the arbitration What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint citing the second edition of Gary Born's International Commercial Arbitration The background to the decision and the key points emerging from the Supreme Court's ruling are expanded upon below.

The underlying dispute arose out of allegations that faulty works by Enka, a read more involved in the construction of the Berezovskaya power plant in Russia, were partially responsible for a massive fire that damaged the plant in The contract between Enka and the head-contractor included an arbitration agreement providing for London-seated arbitration. The contract did not expressly provide for a governing law, either of the contract or the arbitration agreement. Chubb Russia, insurers of the assignee head-contractor, filed a claim in the Moscow Arbitrazh Court in the summer of alleging that Enka and ten other defendants were jointly liable for the fire. In response, Enka filed a motion to dismiss in the Russian courts Adbitration brought suit in the English High Court on 16 Septemberseeking: i a declaration that Chubb Russia was bound by the arbitration agreement in the contract and that it Govwrn to the Russian claim; and ii an anti-suit injunction pursuant to s.

In the English High Court, the dispute centered, among other things, on the question of the law Whxt governed the arbitration agreement.

Filter & Search

What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint contended that it was governed by English law; Chubb contended that it was governed by Russian law. Although Baker J did not resolve the question of the proper law governing the arbitration agreement, he rejected Enka's argument that the parties' choice of seat was a choice of law for the arbitration agreement. The English Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision, holding that there is a strong presumption that parties have chosen the law of the seat as the law governing the arbitration, unless there are "powerful countervailing factors" in the parties' relationships or in the circumstances of the case.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that Chubb Russia's claim fell within the scope of the clause and that it was appropriate to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain Chubb Russia from pursuing the Russian claim. OOf the outset, the majority Lords Hamblen, Leggatt and Kerr noted that it would Arbitratiom English law as the law of the forum to determine whether or not the parties had made a choice of law.

Login to Mondaq.com

The majority then held that, in deciding which system of law governs an arbitration agreement, an English court must apply common law rules because the Rome I Regulation expressly excludes arbitration agreements from its scope. Applying English common law rules, an arbitration agreement — like other contracts — is governed by: i the law chosen by the parties; or ii in the absence of such choice, the law with which the contract is "most closely connected. Where the parties have not specified the law applicable What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint the arbitration agreement but have chosen the law to govern the contract containing the arbitration agreement, the majority found that this choice will, in the absence of a "good reason to the contrary," also apply to the arbitration agreement.

The majority identified two factors that may overcome an inference that the parties intended the law governing the contract to also govern the arbitration agreement, and which may in some cases imply that the parties intended the arbitration agreement to be governed by the law of the https://amazonia.fiocruz.br/scdp/blog/gregorys-punctuation-checker-tool/the-importance-of-keeping-and-improving-overall.php. First, the general inference may be overcome where there is a serious risk that, if governed by the same law as that of the main contract, the arbitration agreement would be ineffective.

This majority referred to this as the "validation principle. Second, the general inference may be overcome if any provision of the law of the seat indicates that, where the parties have chosen that country as the seat of the arbitration, the arbitration agreement will also be treated as governed by that country's law. The majority cited as examples section 48 of the Swedish Arbitration Act and section 6 of the Arbitration Scotland Act Importantly, the majority expressly rejected the Court of Appeal's finding that there was a "strong presumption" that the parties have impliedly chosen the law of the seat to govern the arbitration agreement. Where there is no express or implied choice of law to govern the arbitration agreement, the system of law 'most closely connected' to the arbitration agreement will apply.

The majority held that in general, the arbitration agreement will be most closely connected with the law of the seat of the arbitration. The majority cited multiple reasons for this conclusion: i the seat is where the arbitration What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint to be performed legally, if not physically and by agreeing to a seat of arbitration the parties submit themselves to the What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint of the courts of that place for the purposes of deciding any issue relating to the validity or enforceability of their arbitration agreement; ii this approach is consistent with both legislative policy and international law, including Article V 1 a of the New York Convention; iii this rule is likely to uphold the reasonable expectations of contracting parties who specify a location for the arbitration without choosing the law to govern the contract; and iv this approach provides the legal certainty of a clear default rule in the absence of choice.

The majority also noted obiter dicta that there may be circumstances where an exception to the general rule might apply because the arbitration agreement would be invalid under the law of the seat but not Motivation Theory And Expectancy Theory Of the law governing the rest of the contract citing the second edition of Gary Born's International Commercial Arbitration in support.

It was common ground that the parties did not specifically choose a law to govern their arbitration agreement. The majority found that the parties' contract did not contain a choice of law to govern the contract and held that the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement was to be determined by the "closest connection" test. The majority rejected the argument by Chubb Russia that the existence of the arbitration agreement within a multi-tier dispute resolution provision meant that the arbitration agreement was inextricably bound up with the rest of the contract and thereby governed by the same law. Accordingly, the majority held that English law governed the arbitration agreement and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain the Russian proceedings. The majority also noted that it makes no difference whether the arbitration agreement is governed by What Laws Govern Arbitration Of A Joint or foreign law, as the inquiry in both cases remains the same: whether there has been a breach of the agreement and, if so, whether it is just and convenient to grant an injunction to restrain that breach.]