Sentences with phrase «international arbitral awards under»

Judicial intervention in international arbitral awards under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law (the «Model Law»)-- though given the force of law by the International Commercial Arbitration Act and the Commercial Arbitration Act — is limited in scope by Article 34.

Not exact matches

The arbitration clause provided that the local arbitral tribunal issuing the award only had jurisdiction over «non-technical» disputes, and any «technical» disputes were to be resolved by an international arbitral tribunal under the ICC Arbitration Rules.813

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.»

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);

Consolidated Contractors Group S.A.L. (Offshore) v. Ambatovy Minerals S.A. provides a concrete basis for understanding when Courts can refuse the recognition of an arbitral award in Ontario that falls under the International Commercial Arbitration Act.

Extending the certainty offered under regimes such as the Alberta Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act to all international arbitral awards is not only beneficial because it ensures regulatory consistency, but would also be commercially desirable, helping to avoid costly litigation such as the case at issue here.

Based on the factums submitted to the SCC, the appellant (Yugraneft) is arguing that international arbitral awards should be considered, at least for enforcement purposes, equivalent to foreign judgments, and, as such, should benefit from the 10 - year limitation period under s. 11 of the Alberta Limitations Act.

In Yugraneft, there is no such issue, as domestic arbitral awards are subject to a mandatory two - year limitation period under the Alberta Arbitration Act, and the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that international arbitral awards are also subject to a two - year limitation period.

After the appellants failed to appear at the German arbitration and the Ontario application to enforce the German arbitral award, the appellants finally responded by bringing this appeal based on a technical argument under Article 35 (2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 9, which required the party relying on the foreign arbitral award to supply a certified copy of the original award to the application judge.

While we will be featuring posts over the coming days on this award that dissect and analyze the award, its international legal significance, and its larger geopolitical consequences for all claimants to the South China Sea dispute and third - party actors (such as the United States), for now, a close read of all 479 pages of this arbitral award reveals it to be an extremely rich and fertile piece of international jurisprudence, one that will certainly have far - ranging doctrinal impacts as an international judicial decision that is also an authoritative subsidiary means for determination of the international law rules under UNCLOS, especially on questions such as the: 1) normative weight of «historic rights» and differentiating the same from «historic title» and «historic rights short of sovereignty», and clarifying what could still possibly amount to historic rights that States could still validly assert within the UNCLOS treaty regime;

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).

The Convention on Recognition of Foreign Arbitral Awards Act 2001 which implements the New York Convention 1958 (acceded to by many African countries) applies to any award delivered under the International Arbitration Act.

In an important judgment given on Wednesday 25 October 2017, the Supreme Court has laid down important principles for the enforcement of international arbitral awards and specifically for the interception of funds payable under letters of credit

The Arbitration Law is also expected to modernise the UAE's arbitration regime and bring it more in line with international best practice; currently, there are just 16 provisions governing arbitration in the UAE, set out in Articles 203 to 218 of the CPL.. These are broadly drafted and a key concern for arbitrating parties has been the wide scope for challenges permitted (or at least not expressly prohibited) under the CPL; it is not uncommon for parties to face several months (if not years) of litigation in order to enforce arbitral awards in the UAE.

In this view of the matter and for the reasons that we have indicated, we have come to the conclusion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging an international commercial award of an arbitral tribunal constituted by the Refined Sugar Association, London.