Sentences with phrase «arbitral awards as»

The published materials include three decisions from 2016 - 2017, in which Russian courts recognized SCC arbitral awards as enforceable on the territory of the Russian Federation.

In Ontario, if the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 9 applies, then it provides that the UNCITRAL Model Law (and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards as is contained in the UNCITRAL Model Law) is the law of Ontario.

[71] Commercial parties in particular are urged to exclude «to the fullest extent» [72] the availability of appeal in their arbitration agreements and to fully embrace arbitral awards as final.

According to the Convention, signatory States shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and do not require the confirmation of enforcement of a national court, so that the arbitral judgment would be protected and treated equally in all jurisdictions.

Not exact matches

As previously disclosed, the Company received a final judgment in its favor for a total of US$ 1.9 million plus interest from the US District Court for the District of Arizona in January, 2016 related to an arbitral award of R$ 7.8 million, including interest and penalties, from a Brazilian arbitration panel.

It is quite fascinating to note that the topic I elected to write a thesis on more than 17 years ago remains a topical issue to the extent that a world leading institution such as the IBA has constituted a sub-committee, under the auspices of the IBA Arbitration Committee, to tackle public policy in relation to enforcement of arbitral awards, and the sub-committee issued an excellent report last year on the matter.

As part of China, Hong Kong is also a Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) Contracting State, ensuring that arbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitralArbitral Awards (the New York Convention) Contracting State, ensuring that arbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitral aAwards (the New York Convention) Contracting State, ensuring that arbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitralarbitral awards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitral aawards issued where the seat of arbitration is Hong Kong benefit from this internationally renowned system of mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitralarbitral awardsawards.

Neither does the Court's approach recognize that arbitral tribunals appear to respect the autonomy of EU law, as also testified by the above quotes from intra-EU arbitral awards.

Valid arbitral awards can withstand untimely collateral attacks, as Andreas Dracoulis & Matthew Turner demonstrate

Article 2 of the 1927 Geneva Convention states in relevant part: «If the award has not covered all the questions submitted to the arbitral tribunal, the competent authority of the country where recognition or enforcement of the award is sought can, if it think fit, postpone such recognition or enforcement or grant it subject to such guarantee as that authority may decide».

The Convention's aim is not to limit the pre-existing freedom of the Contracting States to treat foreign arbitral awards or arbitration agreements as favourably as they please, but rather to facilitate their recognition and enforcement to the greatest extent possible.

However, on 5 December, the Court of Appeal led by Chief Justice Pereira JA agreed that a purposive interpretation of Part 7.3 (5)(b) should be deployed and that the provision should be read as granting permission to enforce any judgment or arbitral award made «by a foreign court or tribunal and amenable to be enforced at common law».

Indeed, arbitration now seems to be commercial parties» first choice for dispute resolution in view of obvious benefits such as the clear policy of finality of arbitral awards, as well as confidentiality of arbitral proceedings.

[2] The analysed awards were not only issued under the ICC Rules of Arbitration, but also under the rules of other arbitral institutions, such as the CIETAC, the HKIAC, the DIS, the ICDR, the LCIA, the PCA, the SCC and the SIAC.

As recorded in the travaux préparatoires of the New York Convention, the omission of language in the 1927 Geneva Convention allowing postponement of recognition or enforcement, or granting enforcement subject to a guarantee, of any award that «has not covered all the questions submitted to the arbitral tribunal», was a «significant change» from the wording of the 1927 Geneva Convention.809 The omission is particularly notable given that article V (1)(c) contains very similar language to article 2 (b) of the 1927 Geneva Convention.810

Although article V (1)(d) moves beyond the text of the 1927 Geneva Convention, it is not as liberal as certain arbitration statutes, which attach even less importance than the New York Convention to the law of the country where the arbitration took place at the recognition and enforcement stage.854 As explained in the chapter on article VII, 855 the Convention sets only a «ceiling», or the maximum level of control, which courts of the Contracting States may exert over foreign arbitral awardas liberal as certain arbitration statutes, which attach even less importance than the New York Convention to the law of the country where the arbitration took place at the recognition and enforcement stage.854 As explained in the chapter on article VII, 855 the Convention sets only a «ceiling», or the maximum level of control, which courts of the Contracting States may exert over foreign arbitral awardas certain arbitration statutes, which attach even less importance than the New York Convention to the law of the country where the arbitration took place at the recognition and enforcement stage.854 As explained in the chapter on article VII, 855 the Convention sets only a «ceiling», or the maximum level of control, which courts of the Contracting States may exert over foreign arbitral awardAs explained in the chapter on article VII, 855 the Convention sets only a «ceiling», or the maximum level of control, which courts of the Contracting States may exert over foreign arbitral awards.

An arbitral award was rendered in India against a United States corporation, which argued before the Court that it should not be enforced in the United States on grounds that India would not have enforced the award had it been rendered in the United States in its favour, and that therefore, «the reciprocity between India and the United States as required by the Convention [article XIV] was absent».1394 The contesting party further argued that article XIV requires courts to determine the extent to which India applies the Convention and whether India treats awards rendered in India in favour of Indian parties in a similar manner.

Against this background, the ICC Commission's Task Force of Decisions as to Costs has reviewed hundreds of arbitral awards and has analysed in what manner arbitral tribunals exercise their discretion.

«Notwithstanding section (1), the parties may agree to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court under this section and an agreement to dispense with reasons for the arbitral tribunal's award shall be treated as an agreement to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court under this section.»

«Matters» has broadly been defined in two ways: first, as the subject matter over which the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to the arbitration agreement; and second, in some jurisdictions, as the personal jurisdiction over one of the parties addressed in the award.

The travaux préparatoires show that various concerns were raised over the form and substance of this principle, including concerns that severability of arbitral awards would in practice «open the door to a review as to substance», 794 which the drafters of the New York Convention sought to prevent.

- The provision under which the parties may, subject to the consent of the mediator, agree to appoint the mediator as an arbitrator and request him or her to confirm the settlement in an arbitral award, has been maintained (Article 15).

Summary: The counterparty resisted enforcement against a Russian arbitral award on the grounds that it was not «duly» notified of the arbitration proceedings, as required by Section 54 of the...

Summary: The appellant appealed to a judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal, alleging that a Swedish arbitral award was invalid, as it resolved non-arbitrable issues breaching Swedish and Russian...

The New York Convention was established as a result of dissatisfaction with the Geneva Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923 and the Geneva Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927.

Summary: The appellant challenged a Swedish arbitral award, alleging that an arbitrator's consultancy work raised doubts as to his impartiality in violation of Section 8 of the Swedish Arbitration...

Unlike the judgments made in litigation of first instance, arbitral awards become final and binding on the parties as soon as it is rendered.

2014 has started with a bang from an arbitration perspective with the decision in S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 63 (Jan), involving the conversion of an arbitration award to a financial consent order and comments from Sir James Munby that «an arbitral award is surely of its nature even stronger than a simple agreement between the parties» and «the judge will not need to play the detective unless something leaps off the page to indicate that something has gone so seriously wrong in the arbitral process as fundamentally to vitiate the arbitral award».

The site can be searched by keyword with filters for such things as type of text (Court Decision, Arbitral Awards, Doctrine, Clause, Legislation or Principles) or language (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese and Latin).

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8: grounds for restraining by injunction an arbitration; as well as several leading cases dealing with interim relief in aid of international arbitral proceedings including Mobil Cerro Negor Ltd v Petroleos de Venezuela SA [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep 684 (expropriation of Mobil's oil fields in Venezuela; successfully discharged worldwide freezing order for US$ 12 billion under s. 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996); ETI NV v Republic of Bolivia [2009] 1 WLR 665 (CA): (nationalisation of company; successfully discharged a freezing order obtained under s. 25 of the CJJA 1982 and s. 44 of the AA 1996 in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Telenor v Vimpelcom & Altimo Group (pre-arbitration interim relief in S$ 3bn telecommunications shareholder dispute); Yukos Oil v Rosneft (US$ 425m freezing order in support of enforcement of Russian arbitral awards);

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals does recognize public policy as a potential ground for vacating an arbitral award within the new statutory «on other reasonable ground [s]» provision.

SPC Provisions on Issues related to Enforcement of Arbitral Awards by the People's Courts have been issued by China's Supreme People's Court (SPC) and are effective as of 1 March 2018.

The Supreme Court considered whether the English Court, as an enforcing court of a Nigerian arbitral award, was entitled to require a party resisting enforcement to provide security for the money payable under the award as a condition of being entitled to advance a good arguable defence that enforcement should be refused on grounds of English public policy, e.g. because the award was procured by fraud.

Shearman's international arbitration practice only takes in one or two juniors a year, but there's a wide variety of work on offer as «after arbitration comes enforcement (of the arbitral award), and we do some of that as well, usually in conjunction with litigation.»

Nigel regularly deals with applications under the Arbitration Act 1996, such as applications to stay legal proceedings, for the appointment / removal of arbitrators, for the exercise of judicial powers in support of arbitral proceedings, and for the correction of awards, as well as appeals from arbitration awards on points of law and challenges to awards for want of jurisdiction or on grounds of serious procedural irregularity.

In addition to having been instructed in major arbitrations, such as the Bermudan - based arbitration relating to the reinsurance of Arthur Andersen following the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, and Elektrim SA's long running dispute with Vivendi Universal over Polish telecommunications, he has particular expertise in relation to inter relief applications to the Court in relation to heavy arbitrations such as ETI Euro Telecom V Republic of Bolivia [2008](no pre-emptive relief in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Elektrim SA v Vivendi [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 693 (s. 68 of AA 1996 and awards obtained by fraud); Elektrim v Vivendi [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8 (injunction to restrain arbitration continuing) Telenor East Holding II AS v Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd (multi-billion dollar shareholder dispute — interim injunction under s. 44 of the AA 1996); Steadfast v Baker Hughes (s. 9 (3) step in the action preventing a stay in favour of arbitration) and enforcement of arbitral awards (Yukos v Rosneft: US$ 500m and Yukos v Russian Federation US$ 50 billioas the Bermudan - based arbitration relating to the reinsurance of Arthur Andersen following the collapse of Enron and WorldCom, and Elektrim SA's long running dispute with Vivendi Universal over Polish telecommunications, he has particular expertise in relation to inter relief applications to the Court in relation to heavy arbitrations such as ETI Euro Telecom V Republic of Bolivia [2008](no pre-emptive relief in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Elektrim SA v Vivendi [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 693 (s. 68 of AA 1996 and awards obtained by fraud); Elektrim v Vivendi [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8 (injunction to restrain arbitration continuing) Telenor East Holding II AS v Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd (multi-billion dollar shareholder dispute — interim injunction under s. 44 of the AA 1996); Steadfast v Baker Hughes (s. 9 (3) step in the action preventing a stay in favour of arbitration) and enforcement of arbitral awards (Yukos v Rosneft: US$ 500m and Yukos v Russian Federation US$ 50 billioas ETI Euro Telecom V Republic of Bolivia [2008](no pre-emptive relief in aid of an ICSID arbitration); Elektrim SA v Vivendi [2007] 1 Lloyd's Rep 693 (s. 68 of AA 1996 and awards obtained by fraud); Elektrim v Vivendi [2007] 2 Lloyd's Rep 8 (injunction to restrain arbitration continuing) Telenor East Holding II AS v Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd (multi-billion dollar shareholder dispute — interim injunction under s. 44 of the AA 1996); Steadfast v Baker Hughes (s. 9 (3) step in the action preventing a stay in favour of arbitration) and enforcement of arbitral awards (Yukos v Rosneft: US$ 500m and Yukos v Russian Federation US$ 50 billioAS v Altimo Holdings & Investments Ltd (multi-billion dollar shareholder dispute — interim injunction under s. 44 of the AA 1996); Steadfast v Baker Hughes (s. 9 (3) step in the action preventing a stay in favour of arbitration) and enforcement of arbitral awards (Yukos v Rosneft: US$ 500m and Yukos v Russian Federation US$ 50 billion.

In reaching this decision, the High Court undertook a review of past Singapore case law and legal commentary on the nature and purpose of Article 34 (2)(a)(iii), ultimately deciding that «as a matter of policy, to hold that Art 34 (2)(a)(iii) does not apply, where no other limb under Art 34 (2) would be engaged, would allow an arbitral tribunal to immunize its awards against judicial scrutiny by delivering its conclusions on both jurisdiction and merits in a single award», which would have been an «unsatisfactory result».

Shelbaya agrees that the Egyptian courts adopt a «liberal approach to arbitration», putting in place «stringent criteria» for the setting aside of an arbitral award, as well as routinely recognising and enforcing foreign awards in Egypt.

Another approach to avoid this concern might be to regard immunity as inapplicable to a proceeding which relates directly to another, non-immune underlying proceeding only where it is a necessary or readily foreseeable corollary of that underlying proceeding — as is the case with proceedings to enforce a foreign arbitral award, but not, presumably, with a defamation action arising from statements made in an earlier proceeding.

While enforcement, a foreign arbitral award shall, on the application being made to the appropriate court by any party, be enforced by execution by the court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in the same manner as if it were a decree of the domestic Court.

She is the general editor of the Kluwer Journal of International Arbitration and a member of several groups, such as the International Bar Association's Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Subcommittee, the International Chamber of Commerce's Task Force on Emergency Arbitration Proceedings, and the International Centre for Dispute Resolution's International Advisory Committee.

In June 2014, Professor Scherer joined the IBA Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Subcommittee, which focuses on the inventory of meanings of «public policy» as set forth by international commercial arbitrators, national courts, and investment arbitrators.

The terms of the arbitral award were turned into a consent court order, which ordered the Toronto Police Services to «assist as required» to enforce the provisions of the order.

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the «New York Arbitration Convention» or the «New York Convention», is one of the key instruments in international arbitration.

As mentioned above, contracting States of the Convention should not impose more onerous conditions on the recognition or enforcement of international arbitral awards than those imposed on domestic arbitral awards.

7 Art. 103, General Organic Code of Processes (2015): The court judgments, arbitral awards and acts of mediation issued abroad, whether or not they have been homologated and issued in an adversarial proceedings, will have in Ecuador the same treatment as they have in the current international treaties and conventions -LRB-...).

The very nature of the homologation process, as well as the principle of non-judicial intervention established in the Arbitration and Mediation Law11, forbids the Provincial Court to examine the merits of the arbitral award.

Unlike an appeal, a party can not challenge an award based on any issue related to the merits of the award; rather, a challenge will be successful only if the arbitral award was delivered in violation of one of the limited grounds listed in Article 216 of of the Federal Law No. 11/1992 Concerning the Civil Procedures Law (as amended)(«the CPC»).

We also act as counsel in pre, para and post-arbitration proceedings, including in actions aimed at obtaining injunctive relief, interim measures, annulment and the enforcement of arbitral awards.

In countries that do allow for punitive damages, there is the question of whether an arbitral tribunal, as opposed to the national courts, has the power to award punitive damages.