Sentences with phrase «arbitral awards made»

Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and DIFC Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located there.

Even though Alphamix concerned a domestic arbitral award, the attitude of the Judge in scrutinizing the arguments against the enforcement of an award when a litigant has gone through all the proper court procedures, even public interest ones, is most welcome and sends a strong signal to public bodies which choose to have their commercial disputes resolved by way of arbitration, that they should take arbitration proceedings and arbitral awards made against them seriously.

The first action is the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, i.e., arbitral awards made in the territory of another (Contracting) State.

Declaration: The Convention is applied on the basis of reciprocity to the recognition and enforcement of only those arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State.

Ecuador, on a basis of reciprocity, will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State only if such awards have been made with respect to differences arising out of legal relationships which are regarded as commercial under Ecuadorian law.

Upon ratification: On the basis of reciprocity, the Republic of Argentina will apply the Convention only to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State.

«In accordance with article I (3) of the said Convention the Government of Ireland declares that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State».

Declaration: On the Basis of reciprocity, the Kingdom declares that it shall restrict the application of the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of a Contracting State.

With respect to arbitral awards made by other non-contracting States it will apply the Convention only in so far as those States grant reciprocal treatment as established by mutual agreement between the parties.

Declarations: (a) The Republic of Venezuela will apply the Convention only to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State.

«By virtue of paragraph 3 of article I of the present Convention, the Government of the Republic of Korea declares that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made only in the territory of another Contracting State.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will apply the pro-visions of this Convention in respect of arbitral awards made in the territories of non-contracting States only to the extent to which they grant reciprocal treatment.

The People's Republic of China will apply the Conven - tion, only on the basis of reciprocity, to the recognition and en - forcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of another Contracting State; 2.

The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic will apply the provisions of this Convention in respect to arbitral awards made in the territories of non-contracting States only to the extent to which they grant reciprocal treatment.

Declaration: «In accordance with article I (3) of the said Convention the Government of Kenya declares that it will apply the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made only in the territory of another contracting state.»

On the basis of reciprocity, the Republic of Guatemala will apply the above Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made only in the territory of another contract - ing State; and will apply it only to differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered as commercial under its national law.

TianTong can represent clients to apply for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards (made either by institutional or ad hoc arbitral tribunals), arbitral awards made in Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan.

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».

Marion Boyd's argument is reflected in Omar's comments: if one does not hold out the possibility of enforcing a family arbitral award made under Islamic law, at least on some grounds (and she set out a number of conditions about procedural and substantive fairness), then those who go to arbitration under that law anyway have no protection in civil law, and the arbitrator has no incentive to conform to our general notions of fairness.

An arbitral award made in England may, by leave of the court, be enforced in the same manner as a judgment or order of the court (section 66).

An arbitral award made in the territory of a contracting party to this treaty is enforceable pursuant to section 99 of the 1996 Act.

The judgment is also the first of its kind ordering the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award made on the basis of an unsigned charterparty.

10.1 On what bases, if any, are parties entitled to challenge an arbitral award made in your jurisdiction?

Not exact matches

«Canada's fiscal circumstances relative to its stated budgetary policies» will now be the determining factor in making an arbitral award.

Likewise, arbitral awards are never made available to for public browsing or published on CanLII.

With respect to the award of interest, the Hamburg Court of Appeal rejected a challenge to enforcement under article V (1)(c), made on the basis that the arbitral tribunal had awarded more interest than had been claimed, considering that an «arbitral tribunal can in its discretion and on its own initiative award interest and compound interest for the time until the rendition of the award and for the time after the rendition of the award.»

The court ultimately rejected this challenge because the arbitral award, though mentioning other parties who were not bound by the arbitration agreement, did not make any award in their favour or any determination with respect to the rights of those parties.820

For instance, in a 1968 case, a Swiss court refused to issue an enforcement order on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal had not complied with the agreement of the parties that «all disputes should be settled in one and the same arbitral proceedings» and instead conducted the arbitration in two stages.904 In a 2001 case, the Italian Supreme Court enforced a first award but not a second award made with respect to the same dispute.

European Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, Geneva, 21 April 1961, Article VIII: «The parties shall be presumed to have agreed that reasons shall be given for the award unless they (a) either expressly declare that reasons shall not be given; or (b) have assented to an arbitral procedure under which it is not customary to give reasons for awards, provided that in this case neither party requests before the end of the hearing, or if there has not been a hearing then before the making of the award, that reasons be given.»

«A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the arbitral tribunal) appeal to the Court on a question of law arising out of an award made in the proceedings.»

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

However, even if such an explicit statement of public policy is made, the Court's review of an arbitral award, even on public policy grounds, will still be extremely limited.

Generally, all you have to do to enforce an arbitral award under the Act is make a court application within two years receiving the award.

Lawyers at Covington & Burling consider the enforcement of arbitral awards in Sub-Saharan Africa, where antiquated arbitration laws and hostile courts make life difficult for potential investors.

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.

The Supreme Court found that security can only be ordered where an application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award is being adjourned due to challenges to the award in the courts of the country in, or under the law of which, it was made.

In 2004, a Nigerian arbitral tribunal made an award of «$ 152,195,971 plus Naira 5m plus interest at 14 % per annum» in IPCO's favour.

Respecting contractually - agreed privative clauses which block court appeals would make an arbitral award truly final and binding, they said.

For example, Ontario's Limitations Act waives any limitation period vis - a-vis the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards, but makes no such express exception for international arbitral awards.

(1) An arbitral award, irrespective of the State or jurisdiction in which it was made, shall be recognised as binding within the DIFC and, upon application in writing to the DIFC Court, shall be enforced subject to the provisions of this Article and of Articles 43 and 44.

The arbitral tribunal may extend, if necessary, the period of time within which it shall make the award.

When there is more than one arbitrator, any award or other decision of the arbitral tribunal shall be made by a majority of the arbitrators.

If a party, duly invited by the arbitral tribunal to produce documents, exhibits or other evidence, fails to do so within the established period of time, without showing sufficient cause for such failure, the arbitral tribunal may make the award on the evidence before it.

The arbitral tribunal may within 30 days after the communication of the award make such corrections on its own initiative.

The arbitral tribunal may, if it considers it necessary owing to exceptional circumstances, decide, on its own initiative or upon application of a party, to reopen the proceedings at any time before the award is made.

The arbitral tribunal may make a single award or several awards in respect of all parties so involved in the arbitration.

This applies only to circumstances where the parties reside in different provinces or if the proposed decision to refuse enforcement or set aside a domestic arbitral award is made on the ground of «violating the public interests».

(iii) the making of the final award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption as the underlying contract in the arbitral proceedings was procured by bribes (the «Public Policy Issue «-RRB-.

Interestingly, the Advocate General ranged much more broadly in reaching the same conclusion, stating that these limitations on the review of international arbitral awards were «contrary to the principle of effectiveness of EU law», «(n) o system can accept infringements of its most fundamental rules making up its public policy, irrespective of whether or not those infringements are flagrant or obvious» and «one or more parties to agreements which might be regarded as anticompetitive can not put these agreements beyond the reach of review under Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU by resorting to arbitration» (AG Op § § 58, 67 and 72).