Menu
Browse Options
The New Slovak Arbitration Act Applicable From January 2015: Has It Progressed Sufficiently?

The new Slovak Arbitration Act (“SAA”) was adopted by the Parliament (Act. No. 336/2014 Coll.), and is in force as of January 1, 2015. In order to see whether the SAA will promote Slovakia as an arbitration venue, main novelties and amendments brought by this new act are analysed in this blog entry.

Arbitrability: Under the old law, parties were allowed to arbitrate disputes, which were subject to settlement in courts under art. 99 of the Slovak Code on Civil Procedure. The amendment provides under art. 1(2) that arbitrable disputes are those, which are related to legal relations and “can be settled by an agreement of the parties [under art. 585 of the Slovak Civil Code (“SCC”)] in [...]

Enforcement of an Award Set Aside: the So-Called “Preferred Approach” and its Application under English Law

The Main Approaches Regarding Enforcement of Annulled Foreign Awards

The ongoing issue of whether an award that was set aside in the country of origin should be enforced has recently arisen in England and Wales. This issue has divided jurisdictions in two camps: the first camp is comprised of jurisdictions that are ready to enforce an award notwithstanding the fate of that award in the country of origin, while in the second are jurisdictions in which the courts deny the enforcement of an annulled award. The former jurisdictions are adopting the delocalized approach which emphasizes the transnational nature of an award and their courts are therefore more likely to disregard the annulment of a [...]

English Courts Set Aside Award on Grounds of Serious Irregularity under Section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996

An often cited advantage of arbitration, as opposed to litigation, is the finality of the process. The grounds for time-consuming and costly challenges and appeals are limited.

Under the English 1996 Arbitration Act (the “Act”), parties can only challenge or appeal an arbitration award on three grounds: (i) a challenge on the grounds that the tribunal lacks substantive jurisdiction under Section 67, (ii) a challenge on the grounds of serious irregularity causing substantial injustice under Section 68, and (iii) an appeal on a point of law under Section 69. Only Sections 67 and 68 are mandatory provisions. There is a high evidentiary threshold to be met in order for the grounds under any of t [...]

The New Dutch Arbitration Act 2015

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and should not be regarded as representative of, or binding upon ArbitralWomen and/or the authors’ law firm.

1. Introduction

In this overview, the highlights of the New Dutch Arbitration Act will be discussed. The New Act entered into force on 1 January 2015 in relation to arbitrations commenced on or after 1 January 2015. The New Act is an amendment to the former Dutch Arbitration Act, which dates back to 1986 , many aspects of which remain unchanged in the New Act. Although the Act is not based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006), the Dutch legislator, in its preparation for the New Act, did look to the Model Law (2006).

The N [...]

The Singapore Approach to Scrutiny of Arbitral Awards

International arbitration must of necessity rely on the courts to uphold and enforce arbitral awards and to support the arbitral process. In words of Professor Jan Paulsson, “the great paradox of arbitration is that it seeks the cooperation of the very public authorities from which it wants to free itself.” (Jan Paulsson, Arbitration in Three Dimensions, LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 2/2010 (January 13, 2010)) The courts, not the arbitrators, have to give effect to the arbitral award. Hence, one of the major issues in the law of arbitration continues to be the tension between the courts and the arbitral process: while judicial support is vital to the arbitral process, excessive interve [...]

The French Law Standard of Review for Conformity of Awards with International Public Policy where Corruption is Alleged: Is the Requirement of a “Flagrant” Breach Now Gone?

For many years, the standard of review by French courts of awards rendered in international arbitration proceedings on grounds of violation of international public policy has been controversial. Scholars have debated the relative merits of a “minimalist” as opposed to a “maximalist” approach. In court decisions, the “minimalist” approach prevailed.

In the area of competition law, the “minimalist” standard of review found expression, perhaps most famously, in the 2004 Paris Court of Appeal decision in SA Thales Air Defence v. GIE Euromissile and SA EADS France (1er Ch., sect. C, 18 November 2004) with the requirement that relevant breach of international public policy be “f [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...