Sentences with phrase «n't parties to an arbitration»

This was the case in a challenge to enforcement brought under article V (1)(c) before the Supreme People's Court of China, which found that one of the respondents named in the award was not a party to the arbitration agreement.

Courts can have jurisdiction over people who aren't parties to an arbitration agreement but who may be necessary to grant full relief or who have a stake in the outcome.

However, the working group found a consensus that «the risk of multiple proceedings or conflicting decisions should not outweigh the risk that parties wishing to avoid their commitment to arbitrate, or to delay or disrupt arbitral proceedings, might commence an action which includes claims that are both within and without the scope of the arbitration agreement or unnecessarily names persons who are not parties to the arbitration agreement for tactical reasons.»

Legal rights of third parties not a party to the arbitration proceedings will not be affected and there will be no requirement for disclosure to or recordal of arbitral awards involving IPRs with the respective Registries of the Hong Kong Intellectual Property Department.

Finally, Macintosh J. stayed proceedings against all the defendants who were not parties to the arbitration agreement.

Not exact matches

On March 16, Uber countered that it should be not party to the lawsuit and instead argued that it would request that Waymo seek binding arbitration with Levandowski over the matter since those were conditions of his employment contract with Google at the time.

In the event the parties can not agree on an arbitrator within thirty (30) days of the initiating party providing the other party with written notice that it plans to seek arbitration, the parties shall each select an arbitrator affiliated with JAMS, which arbitrators shall jointly select a third such arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

The court (ICC) in determining the case struck out the Application made to it for arbitration because the court has established that the 2006 contract (signed between Waterville and the Government of Ghana) on which basis he (Woyome) is coming to them does not meet their «minimum requirement» because he (Woyome) * is not a beneficiary, not a signatory, and not a party to the 2006 contract signed between Waterville and the Government of Ghana....

For any matters which are not subject to arbitration as set forth in these Official Rules and / or in connection with the entering of any judgment on an arbitration award in connection with these Official Rules and / or the Contest, the parties irrevocably submit and consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts located in or closest to the County of New York in the State of New York.

If the parties are not able to do so, the Dispute will be resolved only by binding arbitration.

Upon either party's request, the arbitrator will issue an order requiring that confidential information of either party disclosed during the arbitration (whether in documents or orally) may not be used or disclosed except in connection with the arbitration or a proceeding to enforce the arbitration award and that any permitted filing of confidential information must be done under seal.

This provision shall not prevent either party from filing a petition in court to confirm an arbitration award.

The failure of a party to file an arbitration claim within the applicable limitations period shall constitute a waiver by that party of its right to bring such a claim relating to any Dispute in any form, and a complete bar to any claim based on any Dispute, and the arbitrator shall not have jurisdiction to make a determination for a party that has not brought its Dispute for determination within the applicable limitations period.

You and Velocity Micro agree that any claim, dispute, or controversy, whether in contract, tort or otherwise, and whether pre-existing, present or future, and including statutory, common law, intentional tort and equitable claims («Dispute») against Velocity Micro, its employees, agents, successors, assigns or affiliates arising from, in connection with, or relating to this Agreement, its interpretation, or the breach, termination, or validity thereof, the relationships which result from this Agreement (including, to the full extent permitted by applicable law, relationships with third parties who are not signatories to this Agreement), Velocity Micro's advertising or any related purchase SHALL BE RESOLVED, EXCLUSIVELY AND FINALLY, BY BINDING ARBITRATION ADMINISTERED BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION under its Code of Procedure then in effect.

To the extent permitted by law, we shall not be liable for any Losses by or with respect to the Account, except to the extent that such Losses are actual Losses proven with reasonable certainty, are not speculative, are proven to have been fairly within the contemplation of the parties as of the date hereof, and are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an arbitration panel in a final non-appealable judgment or order to have resulted solely from our gross negligence or willful misconduct and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses (regardless of whether such damages or other losses were reasonably foreseeableTo the extent permitted by law, we shall not be liable for any Losses by or with respect to the Account, except to the extent that such Losses are actual Losses proven with reasonable certainty, are not speculative, are proven to have been fairly within the contemplation of the parties as of the date hereof, and are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an arbitration panel in a final non-appealable judgment or order to have resulted solely from our gross negligence or willful misconduct and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses (regardless of whether such damages or other losses were reasonably foreseeableto the Account, except to the extent that such Losses are actual Losses proven with reasonable certainty, are not speculative, are proven to have been fairly within the contemplation of the parties as of the date hereof, and are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an arbitration panel in a final non-appealable judgment or order to have resulted solely from our gross negligence or willful misconduct and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses (regardless of whether such damages or other losses were reasonably foreseeableto the extent that such Losses are actual Losses proven with reasonable certainty, are not speculative, are proven to have been fairly within the contemplation of the parties as of the date hereof, and are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an arbitration panel in a final non-appealable judgment or order to have resulted solely from our gross negligence or willful misconduct and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses (regardless of whether such damages or other losses were reasonably foreseeableto have been fairly within the contemplation of the parties as of the date hereof, and are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an arbitration panel in a final non-appealable judgment or order to have resulted solely from our gross negligence or willful misconduct and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses (regardless of whether such damages or other losses were reasonably foreseeableto have resulted solely from our gross negligence or willful misconduct and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses (regardless of whether such damages or other losses were reasonably foreseeable).

Claims subject to this arbitration provision may not be joined or consolidated in arbitration with any Claim of any other person or be arbitrated on a class basis, in a representative capacity on behalf of the general public or on behalf of any other person, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing.

This arbitration provision also does not limit or constrain the Bank's right to interplead funds in the event of claims to Collateral Account funds by several parties.

The parties agree that any and all disputes, claims or controversies arising out of or relating to the Agreement, its interpretation, performance, or breach, that are not resolved by informal negotiation within 30 days (or any mutually agreed extension of time), shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before a single arbitrator of the American Arbitration Association («AAA») in Los Angeles, California, or its successor.

For any dispute that can not be resolved informally, you agree that all disputes between you and Blue Buffalo (whether or not such dispute involves a third party) with regard to your relationship with Blue Buffalo, including, without limitation, disputes related to these Terms of Use, your use of the Services, and / or rights of privacy and / or publicity, will be resolved by binding, individual arbitration under the American Arbitration Association's rules for arbitration of consumer - related disputes and you and Blue Buffalo hereby expressly waive trial by jury.

Binding Arbitration: ANY CLAIM, DISPUTE, OR CONTROVERSY (WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT, OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER PREEXISTING, PRESENT OR FUTURE, AND INCLUDING STATUTORY, COMMON LAW, INTENTIONAL TORT AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS) BETWEEN CLIENT AND Mulcoy Travel, its respective agents, employees, principals, successors, assigns, or affiliates arising from or relating to these terms and conditions, interpretation thereof, or the breach, termination or validity thereof, the relationships which result from the tour (including, to the full extent permitted by applicable law, relationships with third parties who are not parties to these terms and conditions), Mulcoy Travel's advertising, or any related purchase SHALL BE RESOLVED EXCLUSIVELY AND FINALLY BY BINDING ARBITRATION ADMINISTERED BY THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA) under its Code of Procedure then in effect.

GOVERNING LAW: This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Kenya, and any litigation necessary to resolve disputes between the parties shall be filled in the courts located in Kenya, where such a dispute can not be solved through arbitration.

So the case is not completely analogous to arbitration, in which the parties clearly can agree to confer jurisdiction over their dispute to the Tribunal.

The court reasoned that the wording of the arbitration agreement had not made it clear that the parties regarded the venue as critically important.898 The courts of the United States have similarly considered that the «appropriate standard of review would be to set aside an award based on a procedural violation only if such violation caused substantial prejudice to the complaining party.»

It enables the courts of a Contracting State to refuse recognition and enforcement where the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or, in the absence of an agreement, with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.

Where the alleged irregularity resulted solely from a violation of the law of the place of the arbitration, recognition and enforcement would not be refused unless that law had been chosen by the parties to govern their procedure.

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

Under the Convention, the choice of a place of arbitration by the parties is not to be construed as an agreement to adopt the procedural rules of that jurisdiction.

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.

Parties have brought successful challenges to enforcement of arbitral awards under article V (1)(c) in several jurisdictions on the grounds that the arbitral award addressed a party that was not bound by the arbitration agreement.

Courts have consistently confirmed this in relation to article V (1)(c).837 For example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a party's attempt to raise a challenge under article V (1)(c) to oppose an order compelling arbitration, that is, before the arbitral proceedings had even taken place.838 The court noted that the provision could only be invoked by a party opposing enforcement of an award, which was not possible in circumstances where no award had been issued, and also unlikely where the party raising the challenge was the claimant in the would - be arbitration, and thus not the party who would be in a position to challenge any resulting arbitral award absent any counterclaims.839

One commentator has suggested that a failure to comply with the parties» agreement should not constitute a ground for refusal under article V (1)(d), where such failure is justified by the obligation to comply with the mandatory rules of the place of the arbitration.871 Other authors have argued that it should be assumed that the parties» intention was to be bound by an agreement that is valid at the place of arbitration, and that the reference to «agreement of the parties» must therefore be understood within the limits of the mandatory rules of the forum.872

An Italian court upheld a challenge where the parties» agreement that the tribunal should constitute a specific number of arbitrators was not followed, and noted that the composition of the tribunal would also have been invalid according to the laws of the place of the arbitration.886

Courts have also applied article V (1)(c) in the context of multiparty arbitrations to exclude from enforcement portions of an award which address a party not bound by the arbitration agreement, but enforce the award with respect to the remaining parties.

Moreover, by confirming that the public policy objection can not be interpreted broadly, the Supreme Court confirmed that when parties agree to arbitrate their disputes, they may expect that there will be limited grounds on which they may challenge the award and should be ready to accept these consequences of agreeing to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal of England and Wales considered a challenge to enforcement under article V (1)(c) on the basis that the award addressed parties who were not bound by the arbitration agreement.

Yet, parties may not immediately be cognisant that in entering into such an arbitration agreement that adopts the said institutional rules, they may well be taken to have waived their right to appeal on questions of law insofar as domestic arbitrations are concerned.

As one United States court observed, «[u] nder the New York Convention, we examine whether the award exceeds the scope of the [arbitration agreement], not whether the award exceeds the scope of the parties» pleadings».803 This interpretation of article V (1)(c) which distinguishes the parties» pleadings or prayers for relief from the «submission to arbitration» referred to in article V (1)(c), is consistent with a narrow interpretation of the grounds for refusal to recognize or enforce an award.

For instance, the Supreme Court of Spain enforced an award rendered by a sole arbitrator appointed by one of the parties, where the party opposing enforcement had refused to appoint a co - arbitrator.883 Similarly, a United States court enforced an award rendered by one of the party appointees as a sole arbitrator where the other party chose not to participate in the arbitration.884

43.1 (1) At any time on or after the day that is 45 days after the Minister makes an appointment under subsection 43 (5), if the parties have not entered into a collective agreement, either party may apply to the Board to direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by mediation - arbitration.

- The effect of the mediation agreement is clarified in the new rules by providing in Article 2 that «Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, an agreement to mediate pursuant to these Rules does not constitute a bar to court proceedings or a bar to initiate arbitration».

(9) If the parties do not jointly appoint a mediator - arbitrator within the seven - day period, either party may apply to the Board to settle the first collective agreement by mediation - arbitration.

Summary: The appellant alleged that a binding arbitration agreement did not exist between the parties and that the case should therefore be remanded to the district court for decision.

2014 has started with a bang from an arbitration perspective with the decision in S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 63 (Jan), involving the conversion of an arbitration award to a financial consent order and comments from Sir James Munby that «an arbitral award is surely of its nature even stronger than a simple agreement between the parties» and «the judge will not need to play the detective unless something leaps off the page to indicate that something has gone so seriously wrong in the arbitral process as fundamentally to vitiate the arbitral award».

Is an arbitration clause which does not violate fundamental fairness rights a provision which is so unduly onerous that steps must be taken to draw it to the attention of other contracting parties?

during the arbitration proceedings, deliberately initiate or attempt to initiate with any member of the tribunal or with any member of the LCIA Court any unilateral contact relating to the arbitration or the parties» dispute, which has not been disclosed in writing prior to or shortly after the time of such contact to all other parties, all members of the tribunal and the registrar in accordance with the LCIA Rules 2014, Art 13.4.

In general, agreements signed by both parties concerning arbitration are valid under both the law of India and the law of Japan, and do not have to be notarized.

Importantly, negotiated settlements and arbitration awards usually can not be appealed if both parties agreed to the terms beforehand.

It argues that mass claims arbitration as construed in Abaclat can not satisfy fundamental arbitration principles because it fails to observe the inextricable link between the parties» consent, representative procedure, and representative relief.

All they do is make sure that you follow the mediation process - if you get a result, great; if you don't then you will have to move on to a form of dispute resolution that has an umpire (like arbitration or litigation) who can compel the parties to a resolution.

After the proceedings concluded, the retired judge rendered an arbitration award, which directed that the Association hire a contractor to make certain repairs and advance the funds for the work subject to reimbursement from numerous other affected lot owners who were not parties to any of the prior proceedings.