Stay updated with breaking news from பியோனா நம்பிக்கை. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
In its decision in Sierra Leone v SL Mining Ltd,(1) the High Court confirmed that alleged non-compliance with the provisions of a multi-tiered dispute resolution clause (in particular, the submission of claims to arbitration prior to the end of a prescribed period of negotiation) is exclusively a matter of admissibility for the arbitral tribunal and cannot lead to a successful jurisdictional challenge under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. This decision confirms the scope of a London-seated tribunal s substantive jurisdiction under Section 30(1) of the Arbitration Act. It also confirms that initiation of arbitration proceedings, in apparent breach of a mandatory multi-tiered dispute resolution clause, may be valid where settlement of the dispute is deemed impossible within the remaining prescribed period. ....
In the recent case of Helice Leasing SAS v PT Garuda Indonesia (Persero) Tbk ([2021] EWHC 99 (Comm)), the Commercial Court decided that the claimant, aircraft leasing company Helice, must arbitrate its claim against airline Garuda for more than $5,150,000 in unpaid lease rent under London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) rules instead of proceeding by court action. The court upheld the parties arbitration agreement pursuant to the lease agreement terms despite conflicting references therein which stated that the lessor could proceed by appropriate court action following an event of default.(1) The court endorsed the one-stop shop principle established by the House of Lords in ....
The Fundamental Problem International arbitration is facing continued (if not increased) problems stemming from multitier arbitration clauses. What should happen when one party has not complied with a pre-arbitral step but nonetheless commenced arbitral proceedings? Typically, the parties have a satellite dispute: on one side, whether the commencement of the arbitration is void thus depriving the arbitral tribunal of all jurisdiction due to the non-compliance and on the other side, whether such non-compliance is an issue of admissibility that falls within the arbitral tribunal’s remit to address by way of procedural modification (for example, by ordering a stay of proceedings pending completion of a negotiation period). ....
Summary In X v Y (HCCT 62/2018) [2020] HKCFI 2782 (Date of Decision: 5 November 2020), the Hong Kong Court of First Instance (the Court) set aside an order to enforce an arbitration award on the basis (i) that the tribunal’s findings were beyond the scope of the arbitration clause and the parties submission to arbitration, and (ii) that the respondent in the arbitration had not been given a reasonable opportunity to present its case and to meet the case of the claimant in the arbitration. In her judgment, Mimmie Chan J explained the principles for determining the proper scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction where a dispute involves a series of connected agreements that are subject to different dispute resolution clauses. The court also provided guidance on how arbitrators should proceed if they are impressed by a point that had never been explored or advanced by either side in evidence or submissions. ....
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020 indiankanoon.org - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from indiankanoon.org Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.