By Epaminontas E. Triantafilou (Of Counsel, Quinn Emanuel, London)
Here is a thought. Let’s move the recitation of the parties’ positions from the front of arbitral awards. I said “move” not “remove”, so please sheath that sharpened copy of the New York Convention – I come in peace.
Continue reading Is it time for Tribunals to say more and awards to weigh less?
By Nicholas Querée (Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP)
In the recently decided case of La Societe pour la Recherche La Production Le Transport La Transformation et la Commercialisation des Hydrocarbures SPA “Sonatrach”) v Statoil Natural Gas LLC (“Statoil”)  EWHC 875 (Comm), a decision of Flaux J, the English High Court rejected a challenge to an arbitral award brought pursuant to section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The judgment offers a reminder that the court will look sceptically on applications which, whilst clothed in the language of procedural challenges, are really an attempt to overturn the tribunal’s findings of fact.
Continue reading High Court rejects another application under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 as a challenge to an arbitral award on factual, rather than procedural grounds
By Rimantas Daujotas (PhD Candidate at Queen Mary, University of London) and Justinas Jarusevicius (PhD Candidate at Vilnius University, Associate at Motieka & Audzevicius in Vilnius)
On 2014-04-02, the Lithuanian Supreme Court revisited the issue of applicability of the arbitration clause to non-signatories in a case between the shareholders of a major retail chain in the Baltics.
Continue reading The applicability of arbitration clause to non-signatories: A Lithuanian view
By Kassi Tallent (Counsel, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, D.C.)
As another contributor pointed out in a prior blog post, the notion that parties choose international arbitration so that they can select experts in a particular subject matter to resolve their disputes does not seem to be borne out in reality. Instead, parties to these proceedings tend to select from a relatively small pool of arbitrators, few if any of whom have an academic or professional background that is related to the subject matter of the parties’ dispute. Presumably, these arbitrators are selected because of their experience in international arbitration as a form of dispute resolution, which includes experience resolving complex procedural questions and managing the overall arbitral process. This experience may be particularly important given that most arbitration rules are quite general, leaving much to the discretion or “inherent powers” of the arbitrators.
Continue reading Do arbitrators make effective use of their discretion in managing the arbitral procedure?