Expedited Procedure Vis-à-Vis Party Autonomy, Enforceable?
Kluwer Arbitration Blog
Expedited Procedure Vis-à-Vis Party Autonomy, Enforceable?
Sacchit Joshi, Brijesh Chhatrola (Gujarat National Law University)/May 12, 2018
The ICC Rules introduced expedited procedure with effect from March 01, 2017. With this, the ICC joined the league of other leading arbitration institutions such as SIAC, LCIA and HKIAC who had already incorporated expedited procedure. Courts across the globe have delivered uniform decisions, views in interpreting party autonomy except for a decision by the Shanghai Court. This conflict has led to some uncertainty in the discretion exercised in appointing arbitrators. This post will examine the decision of the Shanghai Court conflicting with other uniform decisions and views which have ignited the discussion on the subjectivity involved in interpreting party autonomy.
This post discusses the refusal of enforcement of an award under the expedited procedure by a Shanghai court. The Shanghai No.1 Intermediate Court, in the case of Nobles Resources Pte. Ltd. v. Good Credit International Trade Co. Ltd. (2016) refused to enforce a SIAC award passed under the expedited procedure (Rules of 2013). The court ruled that it is not in consonance with the intention of the parties and it does not uphold party autonomy. The agreement entered by the parties contained a clause providing for a three-member arbitration tribunal in Singapore. Subsequently, the vice – chairman of SIAC appointed a sole arbitrator under the expedited procedure who passed an award…
Related Posts
The SCC Board Meeting in Stockholm →
Seminar on Energy Disputes →
UNIDROIT Participates in APEC Workshop in Papua New Guinea →
