Sentences with phrase «parties to the arbitration agreement»

«The parties to the arbitration agreement are enjoined from making any emergency applications concerning the management of the hotel in any forum other than the ICC or the courts of New York,» he wrote — jurisdictions in which the matter has already been contested, including the International Chamber of Commerce.

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.

Parties to an arbitration agreement can specify their rights to appeal to a court, limiting the right of appeal to factual issues, legal issues, both or neither.

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.

Parties to an arbitration agreement may also seek a stay under s. 7 (2) of the Arbitration Act.

According to the legislation, if a party to an arbitration agreement starts a lawsuit instead of proceeding with an arbitration, the Court will stay that proceeding upon motion brought by the other party to the arbitration agreement.

The response to the notice of arbitration may also include: (a) Any plea that an arbitral tribunal to be constituted under these Rules lacks jurisdiction; (b) A proposal for the appointment of a sole arbitrator referred to in article 8, paragraph 1; (c) Notification of the designation of an arbitrator referred to in articles 9 or 10; (d) A brief description of counterclaims or claims for the purpose of a set - off, if any, including where relevant, an indication of the amounts involved, and the relief or remedy sought; (e) A notice of arbitration in accordance with article 3 in case the respondent formulates a claim against a party to the arbitration agreement other than the claimant.

Where the parties to an arbitration agreement have agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration under the Rules, they shall be deemed to have submitted to the Rules in effect on the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings, unless agreed otherwise.

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.

Parties to arbitration agreements must draft them with care and should consider explicitly excluding tort or fraud claims if that is what they intend.

a party to the arbitration agreement was, under the law applicable to them, under some incapacity;

A court may intervene in the selection of arbitrators in certain circumstances, but only on the application of one of the parties to the arbitration agreement.

In Fiona Trust Corp, the House of Lords also held that arbitration clauses in international commercial contracts ought to be liberally construed, and that parties to arbitration agreements generally intend all disputes arising out of their relationship to be determined by the same tribunal, unless language to the contrary is present.

It should be noted that a non-signatory may become party to an arbitration agreement according to English law principles of agency.

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.

However, the Commission noted that the Arbitration Ordinance applies only to parties to an arbitration agreement.

There is a risk that parties to arbitration agreements will start foreign EU court proceedings in response to London arbitration proceedings, resulting in extra legal costs and management time being incurred (certain EU domestic court regimes are notoriously slow and inefficient).

Not exact matches

To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, no arbitration under this Agreement shall be joined to an arbitration involving any other party subject to this Agreement, whether through class arbitration proceedings or otherwisTo the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, no arbitration under this Agreement shall be joined to an arbitration involving any other party subject to this Agreement, whether through class arbitration proceedings or otherwisto an arbitration involving any other party subject to this Agreement, whether through class arbitration proceedings or otherwisto this Agreement, whether through class arbitration proceedings or otherwise.

26.1 Regardless of any statute of limitations or law to the contrary, and to maximum extent permitted by applicable law, any Dispute arising out of or related to the Services or this Agreement must be filed within six (6) months after the date in which the incident giving rise to the Dispute occurred; provided that, if the substantive law applicable to the arbitration prohibits the parties from agreeing to this limitations period, then the limitations period under the applicable substantive law shall control.

The parties agree that any and all controversies, disputes or claims arising out of or under this Agreement, shall be exclusively governed and decided by binding arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act in conformity with the Rules and Procedures as established by the American Arbitration Association, and the determination of the arbitrator shall be final and binding (except to the extent there exist grounds for vacation of an award under applicable arbitration statutes).

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.

In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute between the parties arising out of or relating to this agreement or the breach, termination, enforcement, interpretation, consionability or validity thereof, including any determination of the scope or applicability of this agreement to arbitrate, shall be determined by arbitration in Laramie County, Wyoming or in the county in which the consumer resides, in accordance with the Laws of the State of Wyoming for agreements to be made in and to be performed in Wyoming.

Pre-dispute arbitration clause: An agreement between the firm and either its customer or its employee which states that the parties to the agreement will subject future disagreements to arbitration.

This arbitration provision shall survive: i) the termination of the Agreement; ii) the bankruptcy of any party; iii) any transfer, sale or assignment of your Savings Account, or any amounts owed on your Savings Account, to any other person or entity; or iv) closing of the Savings Account.

Mandatory arbitration is an increasingly popular provision in loan agreements that requires parties to resolve disputes through an arbitrator, rather than the court system.

Given that this Agreement provides for mandatory mediation and arbitration, if any party commences litigation in violation of this provision, such party shall reimburse the other parties to the litigation for the costs and expenses, including attorneys» fees, incurred in seeking to abate such litigation and compel arbitration.

The parties agree that notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the rights and obligations in this mediation - arbitration provision shall survive (1) termination of this Agreement by either party; or (2) default of this Agreement by either party.

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.

If any arbitration or other proceeding is brought to enforce or interpret this Agreement or matters relating to it, the substantially prevailing party, as determined by the arbitrator's award, will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys» fees and other costs and expenses incurred in such arbitration or proceeding from the other party, in addition to any other relief to which such prevailing party is entitled; provided that in no event will the arbitrator have the authority to award punitive damages.

The parties agree that any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, will be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280 et seq., and the then current rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association.

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.

Leaving aside the ICS versus arbitration distinction, it seemed to me the CETA would offer a clearer case of intrusion into EU law and the ECJ's autonomy over that law from your perspective because the EU is a party to the agreement?

It can assert authority over the party being funded (or seeking funding) in connection with their conduct of the arbitration, but it has no authority over the funder (or prospective funder) unless it agrees to be bound by the arbitration agreement and the Tribunal's decisions.

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.

While commercial parties may turn to arbitration as the choice dispute resolution mechanism in its transaction document, parties are advised to be alive to the fact that by adopting certain institutional arbitration rules within the arbitration agreement and conducting the arbitration under the auspices of those institutions, they will be taken to have agreed to waive their right to recourse against the award by way of appeal on a question of law in the context of domestic arbitrations.

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.

Courts have also held that the term «submission to arbitration» can include an arbitration agreement modified, amended or supplemented by an arbitral institution's terms of reference agreed to by the arbitrators and disputing parties.

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.

A court that rules on an application for recognition and enforcement in reference to the procedural law of the country where the arbitration took place, without first ascertaining the existence of a party agreement, will thus violate the Convention.868

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.

The Court confirmed that because collective bargaining agreements are negotiated and refined over time by the parties themselves to reflect their needs, and since arbitrators are chosen by the parties because of their expertise in the particular business and their trusted judgment to interpret and apply the agreement, a court's review of an arbitration award is «very limited».