Following the previous post, please click here for a comprehensive review of the new ICC expedited procedure rules which we published on PLC’s website on 1st March 2017.
The revised ICC Rules of Arbitration are in effect as of today, 1 March 2017. The Rules were revised to increase efficiency and accountability in ICC arbitrations and, most significantly, the revised Rules provide for a new expedited procedure that brings the ICC into line with fast-track procedures already available in a number of other arbitral institutions around the world. Unless parties opt out, the ICC’s new Expedited Procedure Rules will automatically apply to all arbitrations with arbitration agreements concluded after 1 March 2017 and with amounts in dispute up
The 2015 ICC statistics are in, and it’s looking better than ever for Singapore. In its latest report, the ICC has confirmed Singapore as the number one seat in Asia and the fourth most preferred seat globally for ICC arbitration. The 2015 ICC Dispute Resolution Statistics have revealed that, in 2015, over 6% of all new ICC cases named Singapore as the seat of arbitration, upholding its ranking as the number one seat of ICC Arbitration in Asia. Whilst the number of Singapore parties remained constant over the last 12
Paris launch of new rules On 28 September 2015 in Paris, the ICC held a global launch event for the revised ICC Dispute Board Rules. The event was well attended, with speakers discussing the practice and salient features of the revised rules. Against the backdrop of the increasing use of Dispute Boards in medium to long term projects, where Boards can be brought on board prior to a dispute arising in order to help speed the resolution of any issue, the revision of the rules aims to update and strengthen
On 14 January 2015, the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) International Centre for ADR launched its 2015 Expert Rules, which set out procedures for the proposal and appointment of experts and neutrals, as well as for the administration of expert proceedings, by the ICC. The new ICC Expert Rules will come into force on 1 February 2015 and will replace the 2003 ICC Rules for Expertise. The new rules are designed to clarify the range of expert services offered by the ICC (i.e., proposal, appointment and administration of expert proceedings)
Abstract: The French Supreme Court recently rendered a highly anticipated decision in Tecnimont v. Avax, a case which had been the subject of proceedings before French Courts for more than six years. The Supreme Court held that a party who, with knowledge of the relevant facts, refrains in arbitration proceedings from exercising its right to challenge an arbitrator within the time limit set out in the applicable arbitration rules, must be deemed to have waived that right in relation to subsequent proceedings to set aside the award. On this ground,
As discussed in our previous post, despite emergency arbitrator procedures becoming increasingly common in institutional arbitration rules, the uptake of the various emergency arbitrator procedures that have been introduced to date has been limited. Since then, the revised LCIA Rules have been published, which (as noted in our post) provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator, whilst also retaining the option of applying for the expedited formation of the arbitral tribunal. This confirms that the option of seeking relief from an emergency arbitrator is increasingly expected to be available.
Introduction As we reported recently, the Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA) published new Commercial Arbitration Rules earlier this year. The new JCAA Rules apply to all arbitrations commenced on or after 1 February 2014. We recently published a note comparing the new JCAA Rules to the latest rules of three other major institutions popular with parties in Asia: SIAC (the Singapore International Arbitration Centre), HKIAC (the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre), and the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce). The new JCAA Rules include a number of provisions intended to bring
On 6 June 2014, the ICC unveiled its new Guide for In-House Counsel and Other Party Representatives on the Effective Management of Arbitration. The Guide represents the latest step by the ICC to address the issues of time and cost efficiency in arbitration. It follows on from the ICC’s report in 2007 on controlling time and costs in arbitration and the subsequent launch of the revised ICC Rules, which came into force on 1 January 2012 and include new provisions specifically aimed at ensuring that time and cost effective procedures
A feature of the wave of revisions to the rules of various arbitral institutions over recent years has been the rise of the emergency arbitrator. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution (“ICDR”) and Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”) were early trend-setters, introducing emergency arbitrator procedures that came into force in 2006 and 2010 respectively. The emergency arbitrator has since become widespread in international arbitration rules: institutions including the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”), Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (“KLRCA”), the Swiss Chambers of
As part of South Korea’s ongoing efforts to establish itself as an international arbitration destination to rival Hong Kong and Singapore, the new Seoul International Dispute Resolution Centre opened at the end of May. The new centre, which has four hearing rooms and three preparation rooms, is fashioned after Singapore’s Maxwell Chambers, and will host arbitrations held under the rules of major arbitral institutions – including the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, the London Court of International Arbitration, the ICC, the International Centre for Dispute
The Cour de cassation’s (the French supreme court) recent ruling could be good news for cash-strapped litigants unable to fork out for the substantial advances on costs required under arbitration rules. Background Pirelli (Italy) brought arbitration proceedings against Licensing Projects (Spain) (LP) over a trade mark dispute in 2007. Later that year, a Spanish court placed LP into a formal insolvency process, followed by compulsory liquidation in July 2009. LP tried to counterclaim but, being in liquidation, was unable to deposit the advance on costs required under Article 30 of