They say the theory that parties
choose their arbitral seat on the basis of whether the court of that jurisdiction is able to issue an anti-suit injunction is unproven and that such orders are no longer as popular as they once were in any event.
Not exact matches
Para 51 — «the
arbitral tribunal... is itself to
choose its
seat and consequently the law applicable to the procedure governing judicial review of the validity of the award...».
The parties may, by agreement,
choose the
seat of the
arbitral tribunal, the identity or composition of the tribunal, its powers and its process.
In fact, the Singapore High Court went further to state that it would be an abuse of process to allow a party who had raised a jurisdictional challenge but
chose not to participate in most part of the arbitration, to wait till the opposing party goes through the entire
arbitral process, obtains an award, only to be met by a setting aside application at the
seat when it could have done so within the 30 - day period under Article 16 (3) of the Model Law.