Not exact matches
Conciliation and
arbitration processes were included but further safeguards, presumably intended to protect the public purse,
allowed a position where the Government of the day, through the Home Secretary, could overule the
decisions of the arbiters.
Article V (1)(c) of the New York Convention
allows the competent authorities in Contracting States to refuse recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, or part of that award, where the award contains
decisions on matters «beyond the scope of the submission to
arbitration».
The drafters of the New York Convention further built on the 1927 Geneva Convention by explicitly
allowing for severability of the part of the award dealing with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to
arbitration, or containing
decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to
arbitration, in order to permit recognition and enforcement of the part of the award containing
decisions on matters submitted to
arbitration.
Binding
arbitration generally
allows for much more irrelevant evidence to be admitted, and binding
arbitration decisions can not generally be overruled on the grounds that the arbitrator failed to follow the law or completely screwed up in understanding the facts.
«It was apparently too much temptation for the Court to
allow the
arbitration panel's clearly incorrect
decision to stand in this case,» Morkan writes.