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

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.»

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

Not exact matches

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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».

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.

However, although arbitrations are generally private, parties would be wise not to consider them confidential, absent a confidentiality agreement.

Mediation / Arbitration (Med / Arb) is a two - step process whereby the parties first engage in mediation and continue on to arbitration if they can not reach a voluntary agreement.

After considering the arbitration agreement as a whole, the Court determined that the parties did not intend to retain any rights of appeal.

An arbitration clause in a construction contract can take many forms, from a simple statement that the parties agree to refer any dispute arising between them to arbitration, to a detailed clause containing not only the agreement of the parties to arbitrate disputes, but also setting out how the arbitrator is to be appointed and the procedures to be used by the parties in the process.

The Arbitration Act itself specifically provides that Courts are not to interfere in disputes covered by an arbitration agreement other than for the limited purposes of assisting in the conduct of arbitrations, ensuring that they are conducted in accordance with arbitration clauses, to prevent unequal or unfair treatment of parties to arbitration clauses, and to enforce arbitration awards.

Given the language of the collective agreement and the Protocol, it is not a reasonable conclusion that the parties intended to give an unlimited discretion to the arbitration board to develop a new workload and compensation scheme to apply to the return to work after the strike on a case by case basis and to have that system operate in conjunction with the rules in Article 11 applicable to the «normal workload.»

The arbitral tribunal may, at the request of any party, allow one or more third persons to be joined in the arbitration as a party provided such person is a party to the arbitration agreement, unless the arbitral tribunal finds, after giving all parties, including the person or persons to be joined, the opportunity to be heard, that joinder should not be permitted because of prejudice to any of those parties.

Entering an arbitration agreement entails not only a positive right to refer disputes to arbitration, but also a negative obligation on contracting parties not to bring proceedings in any other forum.

Parties who have a potential claim against Nakheel or one of its subsidiaries, where there is no binding arbitration agreement, need to consider whether or not to issue proceedings in the Special Tribunal before Nakheel is carved out from Dubai World.

For arbitration cases where mediation might be useful, the parties can employ what is called «blended mediation / arbitration,» in which the third - party neutral acts initially as the mediator to see if the parties can reach an agreement on many disputes and then acts as the arbitrator, deciding the disputes the parties can not agree upon.

According to the Polish arbitration law (based on the UNCITRAL Model Law), an arbitration agreement does not deprive the parties of the right to apply to a Polish court for interim relief.

When a contract between the parties states that the JW Commercial Arbitration Rules will be used to resolve disputes between the parties, or a contract provides for disputes to be resolved through arbitration by JW without specifying the rules to be utilized, or a contract does not state how disputes will be resolved and the parties agree to modify their agreement to provide for arbitration by JW, or two or more parties without a written contract between them agree to submit their dispute for resolution through arbitration by JW, then these Rules, with any written modifications agreed to by the parties and approved by the arbitrator, will apply.

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).

In Hyundai Merchant Marine Company Limited v Americas Bulk Transport [2013] EWHC 470 (Comm), the High Court held that both the parties» main agreement and arbitration agreement were invalid because they were subject to conditions precedent, which had not been satisfied.

As indicated above, the court has the power to remove an arbitrator on several grounds, including: (i) justifiable doubts as to his impartiality; (ii) the fact an arbitrator does not possess the qualifications required by the parties» arbitration agreement; (iii) physical or mental incapability; or (iv) failures in conducting the proceedings (section 24 (1)(a) to (d)-RRB-.

The insurance company is not a party to the collective agreement, so grievance arbitration is not available.

For instance, a clause might not be considered an arbitration agreement under the 1996 Act if it does not permit the arbitrator to make decisions that are binding on the parties (Turville Heath Inc v Chartis Insurance UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 3019 (TCC)-RRB-.

Where the arbitration agreement does not include these elements, the default provisions of the 1996 Act provide detailed procedures, designed to enable parties to use and enforce arbitration agreements in circumstances where the agreements themselves provide little practical assistance.

The court is also entitled to stay court proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction where the requirements of section 9 of the 1996 Act are not satisfied — for instance, where there is a dispute whether the parties have entered into a binding arbitration agreement or whether the dispute falls within the scope of the arbitration agreement (see A v B [2006] EWHC 2006 (Comm)-RRB-.

An application under section 9 is not the only means by which a party can seek to restrain court proceedings allegedly brought in breach of an arbitration agreement.

By way of example only (and not by limitation), if the parties do not agree on whether a particular Dispute is subject to arbitration under this arbitration agreement, the proper tribunal to decide such Dispute is the United States District Court (for the appropriate district, as provided above) or, absent subject matter jurisdiction in that United States District Court, in the appropriate state court (as described above).

Parties would not likely turn their minds to this possibility in advance of the arbitration; it would be difficult or impossible to get any agreement after the fact, if it does happen.

A court should not permit parties to avoid arbitration agreements by naming related parties, but not the signatory of the contract, as defendants.

Section 45 (1) of the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991 provides that, if the arbitration agreement does not deal with appeals on questions of law, a party may appeal an award to the court on a question of law with leave, which the court shall grant only if it is satisfied that (a) the importance to the parties of the matters at stake in the arbitration justifies an appeal; and (b) determination of the question of law at issue will significantly affect the rights of the parties.

When the first instance court makes a ruling which relates to the validity of an arbitration agreement relating not to accept, to reject a filing or objection to jurisdiction, and a party disagrees with the ruling and appeals, the specialized trial division of the second instance court should handle it.