Sentences with phrase «arbitral tribunals decide»

Principally, the growing fear of having privately constituted arbitral tribunals decide disputes in a manner that

Principally, the growing fear of having privately constituted arbitral tribunals decide disputes in a manner that exposes host States to legal and financial risks and in a way that might negatively impact the host States» sovereign right to regulate matters of public interest merit due consideration and attention.

If an arbitrator is replaced, the proceedings shall resume at the stage where the arbitrator who was replaced ceased to perform his or her functions, unless the arbitral tribunal decides otherwise.

Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal may order that pre-award and post-award interest (either simple or compound) be paid by any party on any sum awarded at such rates as the arbitral tribunal decides to be appropriate (without being bound by rates of interest practised by any state court or other legal authority).

But, in any case, arbitral tribunals deciding India - related disputes may well take comfort that the Indian arbitration regime supports robust cost decisions.

Not exact matches

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».

Consequently, where an arbitral tribunal has rendered an award which decides matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, there is a ground for refusing to enforce an award under article V (1)(c).799

Earlier statistics regarding ICC cost decisions seem to suggest that arbitral tribunals in most cases start with the rule «costs follow the event» but in the end decide that each party has to bear its own costs.

Summary: The arbitral tribunal had dismissed the arbitration under Section 38 of the Swedish Arbitration Act, without deciding the dispute on the merits, on the grounds that the claimant had...

His Lordship emphasised the importance of upholding party choice vis - à - vis the arbitral process — irrespective of the fact that no party has any choice about whether to arbitrate, let alone decide the composition of the tribunal, when they contract with CSAT; some explain this on the basis that CSAT is a special case, being a tribunal of an international organisation.

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».

The party also argued that the arbitral award was invalid because the tribunal decided a question not eligible for arbitration under Swedish law, namely whether certain transactions constituted unlawful distributions under the Swedish Companies Act.

On the decision, John told Lexpert that «the message that [the SCC] and various courts of appeal have sent out over the past decade or more, that when parties decide to arbitrate disputes and the arbitrator makes a decision, a great deal of deference is to be given by the court to the arbitral tribunal.»

An interim measure is any temporary measure by which, at any time prior to the issuance of the award by which the dispute is finally decided, the arbitral tribunal orders a party, for example and without limitation, to: (a) maintain or restore the status quo pending determination of the dispute; (b) take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that is likely to cause, (i) current or imminent harm or (ii) prejudice to the arbitral process itself; (c) provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied; or (d) preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to the resolution of the dispute.

In the case of questions of procedure, when there is no majority or when the arbitral tribunal so authorizes, the presiding arbitrator may decide alone, subject to revision, if any, by the arbitral tribunal.

In all cases, the arbitral tribunal shall decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, if any, and shall take into account any usage of trade applicable to the transaction.

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 shall have the power to issue such an order unless there are remaining matters that may need to be decided and the arbitral tribunal considers it appropriate to do so.

The arbitral tribunal shall decide as amiable compositeur or ex aequo et bono only if the parties have expressly authorized the arbitral tribunal to do so.

The arbitral tribunal shall decide which further written statements, in addition to the statement of claim and the statement of defence, shall be required from the parties or may be presented by them and shall fix the periods of time for communicating such statements.

For example, the Arbitration Act 1996 (which applies where the arbitral seat is in England and Wales or Northern Ireland) provides that an arbitral tribunal may decide all procedural matters, subject to the parties» right to agree any matter.

Under this procedure, the ICC Secretariat would serve as the custodian of a Sealed Offer which had been rejected and would not disclose it to an arbitral tribunal until after the merits and the quantum of the case had been decided and the tribunal was ready to determine who should bear the costs of the arbitration or in what proportion they should be borne by the parties.

A final and binding award, therefore, precludes the successful party from bringing the same claim (s) again, either in a fresh arbitration or before the national courts, and precludes both parties from contradicting the decision of the arbitral tribunal on a question of law or fact decided by the award (Sun Life Insurance Company of Canada and others v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 675; Injazat Technology Capital Ltd v Najafi [2012] EWHC 4171 (Comm)-RRB-.

(6) Within ten days of being notified of the arbitral tribunal's decision, a party may make an application to the court to decide the issue and, in the case of the challenging party, to remove the arbitrator.

Section 31 makes it mandatory for an arbitral tribunal to decide a dispute in accordance with law, with which is expressly stated to include specific performance, injunctions and other equitable remedies.

The arbitral tribunal has considered the objections raised by the respondents herein that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide the allegations to forgery, fraud and fabrication and has rendered the jurisdictional award holding that under law of Singapore, the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to decide such allegations.

This sub-section introduces into Ontario law the now well - know principle of «competence - competence», that is, that an arbitral tribunal is competent to decide its own competence.