In GMB v Holis Metal Industries Ltd the EAT held that TUPE did potentially apply to transfers outside the UK, although it conceded that enforcement
of tribunal awards might prove tricky.
Not exact matches
The
tribunal in the arbitration with Danone on claims arising out
of Fonterra's WPC80 precautionary recall in August 2013 has issued its
award.
First, Thursday April 13th saw a disclosure from the Energy Ministry that Ontario paid out $ 28,095,332 including about $ 240,000 in interest to Windstream Energy to satisfy the
award made to them under the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
tribunal, due to cancellation
of a 300 - MW offshore industrial wind turbine project.
The EAT also noted that while the
tribunal took a «very dim view»
of the conduct
of Miss Nixon at the Christmas party, that could not be taken into account in considering an
award of just and equitable compensation; that had to be in accordance with the loss sustained [at 56].
The case concerned a preliminary reference by a German court (the Federal Court
of Justice, or Bundesgerichtshof) regarding the validity
of an
award rendered by an ISDS
tribunal under the Dutch - Slovak bilateral investment treaty (BIT).
Generally speaking, whether or not the original aid scheme constitutes illegal state aid (there are strong indications that it doesn't), the
tribunal should have acknowledged that the claimant investor is bound by EU state aid rules and that the satisfaction
of the
award is conditioned on the Commission's finding on the compatibility
of the original scheme with EU state aid rules.
The optimal outcome for investors is if they have the possibility to bring a claim based on an EU FTIA before an investor ‑ state
tribunal and before domestic courts, while the optimal outcome for civil society is if investors can not bring an FTIA claim before any
of the two judicial avenues; (ii) problems facing the domestic enforcement
of ISDS
awards; (iii) the need to keep the investment protection standards in the agreements or not.
As noted, given that the criteria
of state liability for non-contractual breaches are more strict under (in this case) domestic law, Spanish courts have rejected all compensation claims brought by the affected investors, whereas some
of the
tribunals dealing with the ECT claims have
awarded sizeable compensation to the claimants.
Neither does the Court's approach recognize that arbitral
tribunals appear to respect the autonomy
of EU law, as also testified by the above quotes from intra-EU arbitral
awards.
Procedural innovation is regarded as the key to controlling time and cost, where it is increasingly likely that
tribunals will commit to a schedule for deliberations and delivery
of final
awards.
In particular, compensation for economic loss occurring as a result
of general legislative acts (such as the one in Achmea) is not easily forthcoming under EU law or national law, whereas in Achmea the
tribunal awarded the claimant investor some 22 million euros in damages.
Article 2
of the 1927 Geneva Convention states in relevant part: «If the
award has not covered all the questions submitted to the arbitral
tribunal, the competent authority
of the country where recognition or enforcement
of the
award is sought can, if it think fit, postpone such recognition or enforcement or grant it subject to such guarantee as that authority may decide».
Consequently, where an arbitral
tribunal has rendered an
award which decides matters beyond the scope
of the arbitration agreement, there is a ground for refusing to enforce an
award under article V (1)(c).799
The term «arbitral procedure» encompasses the period beginning with the filing
of an action and ending when the
award is rendered.891 The application
of the law by a
tribunal, on the other hand, goes to the actual merits
of a dispute and therefore falls outside the scope
of review at the recognition and enforcement stage.892
With respect to the
award of interest, the Hamburg Court
of Appeal rejected a challenge to enforcement under article V (1)(c), made on the basis that the arbitral
tribunal had
awarded more interest than had been claimed, considering that an «arbitral
tribunal can in its discretion and on its own initiative
award interest and compound interest for the time until the rendition
of the
award and for the time after the rendition
of the
award.»
However, on 5 December, the Court
of Appeal led by Chief Justice Pereira JA agreed that a purposive interpretation
of Part 7.3 (5)(b) should be deployed and that the provision should be read as granting permission to enforce any judgment or arbitral
award made «by a foreign court or
tribunal and amenable to be enforced at common law».
The losing party once again filed for the setting aside
of the
award, this time alleging that the
tribunal had not observed the decision
of the court rendered during the first setting aside proceedings and, moreover, this led the
tribunal to overlook the limitation periods included in Polish law.
However it serves both as a reminder
of the importance
of following a fair procedure when dismissing an employee but also
of the fact that the employment
tribunal is free to reduce a compensatory
award as it judges just and equitable in the event that the Claimant is considered to have contributed to a dismissal.
For instance, article 1520
of the New French Code
of Civil Procedure provides that an
award should not be recognized where «the arbitral
tribunal was not properly constituted».
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...».
In 2009 the arbitral
tribunal found that it had jurisdiction over the dispute and in 2012 the arbitral
tribunal delivered a final
award on the merits, unanimously stating that the Russian Federation was guilty
of expropriation and ordered Russia to pay compensation in accordance with the BIT.
Courts and commentators have consistently considered that «matters» refers to the subject matter that is encompassed by the arbitration agreement and thus subject to the jurisdiction
of the arbitral
tribunal that issued the
award in question.812
According to the ICC Report,
tribunals allocated costs according to the principle «costs follow the event» in the majority
of awards.
a) Would there be a similar provision as under Scottish Legal Aid legislation (Section 18 (2)
of the LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND) ACT 1986) «The liability
of a legally assisted person under an
award of expenses in any proceedings shall not exceed the amount (if any) which in the opinion
of the court
of or
tribunal making the
award is a reasonable one for him to pay, having regarding to all the circumstances including the means
of all parties and their conduct in connection with the dispute».
In a 1978 decision, for instance, the Court
of Appeal
of Florence refused to enforce an
award rendered in England by only two arbitrators, who had declined to appoint a third arbitrator on the basis
of the 1950 English Arbitration Act, pursuant to which a clause providing for a three - member
tribunal was deemed to take effect as if it provided for an umpire.
As recorded in the travaux préparatoires
of the New York Convention, the omission
of language in the 1927 Geneva Convention allowing postponement
of recognition or enforcement, or granting enforcement subject to a guarantee,
of any
award that «has not covered all the questions submitted to the arbitral
tribunal», was a «significant change» from the wording
of the 1927 Geneva Convention.809 The omission is particularly notable given that article V (1)(c) contains very similar language to article 2 (b)
of the 1927 Geneva Convention.810
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.
The Svea Court
of Appeal dismissed Kazakhstan's claims, holding that the
award was not clearly incompatible with Swedish ordre public, that the arbitration agreement was valid, and that the arbitral
tribunal was duly appointed.
Introduce «naming and shaming»
of businesses that do not pay employment
tribunal awards and new reporting obligations (for example, publish information on agency workers and zero hours workers).
The New York Convention, however, limits the scope
of article V (1)(c) by omitting language found in article 2
of the 1927 Geneva Convention which permitted enforcing authorities to delay, or create conditions in relation to, the enforcement
of awards, where the
award did not cover all the questions submitted to the arbitral
tribunal.793
It is bound by the decision rendered in the setting aside
of the
award to the same extent that any other
tribunal or court would be bound.
Courts have rejected challenges under article V (1)(d) where the parties choose institutional rules to govern their procedure that provide for flexibility concerning the manner in which the
tribunal is to be composed.881 On the other hand, a German court refused recognition and enforcement where an
award was rendered by two, instead
of three arbitrators, as expressly required by the rules
of the International Arbitration Court
of the Belarusian Chamber
of Commerce that the parties had agreed would govern their arbitration.882
Kazakhstan also claimed that the
award was not covered by a valid arbitration agreement and that the
tribunal had been appointed in violation
of the SCC Rules.
Against this background, the ICC Commission's Task Force
of Decisions as to Costs has reviewed hundreds
of arbitral
awards and has analysed in what manner arbitral
tribunals exercise their discretion.
«Notwithstanding section (1), the parties may agree to exclude the jurisdiction
of the Court under this section and an agreement to dispense with reasons for the arbitral
tribunal's
award shall be treated as an agreement to exclude the jurisdiction
of the Court under this section.»
Leading commentators agree that article V (1)(c) does not apply to
awards which fail to address all the issues submitted to the arbitral
tribunal for resolution.808 Though there are no reported cases addressing whether article V (1)(c) applies to
awards rendered infra petita, the view that such
awards do not provide grounds for refusal
of recognition or enforcement is consistent with the text and spirit
of the Convention.
Of importance to all regulators, the tribunal noted, in addressing injury to dignity (and in awarding $ 25,000 under this head of loss), the complainant was in an «extremely vulnerable position,» given that events were taking place at the very outset of his career, and involved interactions with his professional governing body, leading to «a significant power imbalance at play.&raqu
Of importance to all regulators, the
tribunal noted, in addressing injury to dignity (and in
awarding $ 25,000 under this head
of loss), the complainant was in an «extremely vulnerable position,» given that events were taking place at the very outset of his career, and involved interactions with his professional governing body, leading to «a significant power imbalance at play.&raqu
of loss), the complainant was in an «extremely vulnerable position,» given that events were taking place at the very outset
of his career, and involved interactions with his professional governing body, leading to «a significant power imbalance at play.&raqu
of his career, and involved interactions with his professional governing body, leading to «a significant power imbalance at play.»
We advise on all aspects
of arbitration, from drafting suitable clauses to advising on the type and seat
of arbitration, the formation
of a
tribunal, arbitral procedure and enforcement
of the
award.
Summary: The respondent requested the Court to amend the
award alleging that the
tribunal had made a procedural error that affected the outcome
of the case.
In the arbitral
award, the
tribunal had found the appellant in breach
of EU competition law and ordered it to pay damages.
«A party to arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the arbitral
tribunal) appeal to the Court on a question
of law arising out
of an
award made in the proceedings.»
«Matters» has broadly been defined in two ways: first, as the subject matter over which the arbitral
tribunal has jurisdiction pursuant to the arbitration agreement; and second, in some jurisdictions, as the personal jurisdiction over one
of the parties addressed in the
award.
One United States District Court found that an
award for consequential damages was within the submission to arbitrate even though consequential damages were explicitly precluded by the terms
of the underlying contract, in circumstances where consequential damages were included in the terms
of reference and a reasoned
award by the arbitral
tribunal justified their application.823
«9 The Court refused to interfere with the AHRC's
award of damages, and held that it was within the range
of reasonable past
awards by
tribunals and courts.
68 and 69
of the Arbitration Act 1996 to vary an LMAA arbitration
award made by a distinguished three - member
tribunal.
Summary: The claimant requested that the Court annul certain items
of the arbitral
award because the arbitral
tribunal had exceeded its mandate by going beyond the parties» motions and by...
The President
of the Employment
Tribunals in England and Wales has issued guidance updating the Vento bands for calculating
awards for injury to feelings.
A
tribunal awarded nominal compensation
of # 2 for not permitting an employee to be accompanied by...
The Supreme Court concluded that the
tribunal's
award was not contrary to the mandatory EU competition rules, and found that it was not necessary to request a preliminary judgment from the ECJ to guide its review
of the matter.
The government lost the case before the investment
tribunal and the
tribunal issued an
award of around 25 million EUR against Slovakia, which refused to pay.