- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by
.
- Posts
When any one party challenges the decision of arbitration tribunal but the tribunal still insists that they does have jurisdiction, then the challenger has the option to appeal to the relevant court within 30 days.
My question is..the UN model law states that the national courts have no rights to intervene in arbitration. Then what happens after the challenger appeals to therelevant national court ?And also at the time of setting aside/recourse of an award made by an arbitrator, parties appeals to their relevant courts. So why are parties interacting with courts when it is not allowed ? And courts helping them ?
You have yourself correctly pointed out that a National Court has no right to intervene
The point about arbitration is that both parties have agreed to settle disputes through the process of arbitration rather than through lengthy and expensive court proceedings
So these disputing parties have agreed on arbitration as the appropriate route to follow to resolve the dispute
According to the ICC’s website:
“Pleas on Jurisdiction
The arbitration will proceed and the Arbitral Tribunal shall decide such issue—unless the Secretary General refers the matter to the Court for a decision (Articles 6(3) and 6(4)) where any party:
does not file an answer;
raises one or more pleas concerning the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement; or
questions whether all of the claims may be determined together in a single arbitration.If the Secretary General refers the case to the Court, it will then decide whether and to what extent the arbitration shall proceed. An arbitration will proceed if and to the extent that the Court is prima facie satisfied that an arbitration agreement under the Rules may exist (Article 6(4)).”
So it seems (according to the 2017 revisions to the Arbitration Rules / Articles) that a tribunal, when challenged about its jurisdiction, may make the decision itself as to whether it has the necessary jurisdiction
But, if a party is still not happy, then appeal may be made to the Court of Arbitration
Basically, if you think that you may not be happy about whether a potential body of people (arbitrators) has jurisdiction to settle a dispute that you may have in the future, then you shouldn’t have agreed to arbitration as a means to resolve those potential future disputes when you entered into the international contract
In specific answer to your question “what happens after the challenger appeals to therelevant national court ?” … nothing, because the national courts will not become involved. If you decide to avoid the involvement of the courts and have agreed to settle dispute by arbitration, the court (if you choose to appeal to them) will look pityingly down on you and say “Sorry, pal, but you agreed to go to arbitration so go to arbitration”
OK?
“And also at the time of setting aside/recourse of an award made by an arbitrator, parties appeals to their relevant courts. So why are parties interacting with courts when it is not allowed ? And courts helping them ?”
Sorry, I was preparing my answer to your first post when you sent in this latest one 🙁
Articles 5 and 6 of the Model Law cover the aspect of specifying a court or other authority to perform certain functions when required – for example the appointment of arbitrators where the parties are not able themselves to agree on the identity of a sole arbitrator
But Court involvement has to be a very rare issue – the whole concept of arbitration is to avoid Court involvement
OK?
- The topic ‘International court of arbitration’ is closed to new replies.