This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Serious Irregularity The leading authority on Section 68 challenges is RAV Bahamas Ltd and another v Therapy Beach Club Inc [2021] UKPC 8 , which prescribes that intervention should be limited to ‘extreme’ cases and that the test of serious irregularity imposes a ‘high threshold’.
Arbitral Practice and Disclosure Obligations Saint-Gobain v Venezuela (2013) and Ghana v Telekom Malaysia (2004) , when analysed together, demonstrate the impermissibility of double hatting only when the dual role is played simultaneously involving the same party. under the UNCITRAL Rules).
Founded in 1993, ADCCAC offered case management services, hearing rooms, and a set of arbitration rules that were last updated in 2013. The 2023 SCCA Arbitration Rules (commented on in a previous blog post ) increased the threshold amount in dispute for expedited proceedings to approximately USD 1.07 million in value.
SA Minerals Ltd , 12-CV-8087(CM) (SN), 2013 WL 2661037 (S.D.N.Y. June 12, 2013), a U.S. The threshold to challenge an interim award on the basis of its finality is lower in comparison to establishing whether such an interim award is binding or not. In CE Int’l Res. Holdings LLC v. This is consistent with Sperry Intern.
For arbitrations that continue to contain references to an ADCCAC arbitration clause, Article 53(2) of the arbitrateAD Rules clarifies: The ADCCAC Rules 2013 will apply to any pending arbitration commenced before 1 February 2024. These provisions in the arbitrateAD Rules helpfully clarifies their application. million) under the SCCA Rules.
There is a very high threshold for a Section 68 challenge. P&ID’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Quinn, had conducted himself dishonestly in giving evidence at the Court of which parts were knowingly false, namely that P&ID had procured the contract with Nigeria through corrupt payments to a Nigerian official.
Background Facts In January 2013, the Defendant contracted to purchase shares in a company from the Claimant in two tranches. Its main contentions were that the award was induced or affected by fraud or corruption, and enforcement would be contrary to public policy.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content