The Nicosia District Court recently issued an order which referred a dispute to arbitration. The order stipulated that the arbitrator should deliver a final decision within nine months. One of the parties applied to the court for an extension of the arbitration procedure. The court rejected the application on the ground that only the arbitrator had the right to apply for such an extension.
The Limassol District Court recently concluded that an appeal pending before the English courts does not suspend an order's enforcement or diminish the validity of an arbitral award. The applicants had applied for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued in May 2016. The court held that the order was final and that there had been no abuse of process; the respondents' request to set aside the award was therefore rejected.
In a recent Limassol District Court case, the applicants applied for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The respondents had previously applied to the Cypriot courts to set aside and annul the arbitral award pursuant to the International Commercial Arbitration Law. In their objection to the application for the recognition of the award, the respondents advanced additional grounds to those raised in their earlier application to annul the award.
The District Court of Limassol recently issued a judgment in relation to an application filed by the Cooperative Bank of Limassol in 2016. The applicants had sought a court order to cross-examine the affiant on certain paragraphs of his affidavit, which supported a 2014 application for the registration and enforcement of an arbitral award in Cyprus.
The applicant in a recent case applied to the Limassol District Court for the registration and enforcement of an arbitral award which had been issued by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). This case sheds light on the interpretation and application of Article V(1)(c) of the New York Convention and clarifies that an arbitral award, including an award for costs, is registrable before the courts even in cases where the LCIA has no jurisdiction.
The Constitutional Court recently annulled an arbitral award based on grounds that are not listed in the Arbitration Law as causes for such action. To reach that outcome, the court made an expansive application of certain constitutional guarantees dealing with due process. The ruling has created troubling uncertainty regarding the enforcement of arbitral awards.
After the National Assembly passed a law regulating agreements for public-private partnerships involving foreign investors, the executive branch promulgated a decree establishing regulations to facilitate the law's implementation. Some of the new regulations deal with arbitration in the context of public-private partnerships with foreign corporations. Although this is a positive step in the recognition of arbitration as an efficient dispute resolution mechanism, the regulations contain some shortcomings.
A UNCITRAL tribunal has found Ecuador to be in breach of the 1996 Canada-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty for the unlawful expropriation of the investment of a Vancouver-based company. The expropriation was the result of a resolution passed by the 2008 constituent assembly. According to Ecuadorian jurisprudence, the powers of constituent assemblies are considered unlimited and are therefore not subject to judicial review.
The Constitutional Court recently annulled a National Court of Justice ruling that had denied a petition to review a sentence issued by the president of the Guayaquil Court on a nullity action against an arbitral award. According to the Constitutional Court, the National Court's decision was unconstitutional because it deprived the plaintiff of his right to appeal.
Parties' ability to choose their arbitrators remains one of the most frequently mentioned advantages of arbitration over litigation. However, this freedom makes sense only if it preserves the overarching duties of arbitrators and judges alike – that is, the duty to be and remain independent and impartial from the parties.
The Paris Court of Appeal recently set aside an award on the grounds of a violation of the principle of equality of arms. The court had to rule on the Iraq war's impact on due process in arbitral proceedings between the Republic of Iraq and two German companies. This decision comes as a reminder that arbitration is a jurisdictional process where parties and arbitrators, while enjoying considerable freedom and flexibility, should be mindful of due process and fair trial guarantees.
The French courts recently supported the rigorous application of the principle of procedural estoppel and reiterated their commitment to the enforcement of agreements that govern arbitral proceedings. The principle prevents parties from relying on alleged irregularities that affect arbitration proceedings before the French courts if the requesting party has not initially raised them before the arbitral tribunal.
A recent Supreme Court decision confirms French law's strict approach in matters involving arbitrators' independence and impartiality. The court found that despite an arbitrator's previous disclosure that his firm had had an inactive relationship with the parent company of one of the parties to the arbitration, his later failure to disclose that this relationship had resumed created reasonable doubt as to his independence and impartiality.
The jurisdictional duality which characterises the French legal system triggers practical difficulties in international arbitrations, especially when they involve the recognition and enforcement in France of arbitral awards relating to issues of French administrative law. The Cour de Cassation recently decided on this issue, holding that civil courts have jurisdiction to rule on the recognition and enforcement of any foreign arbitral award.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that the provisions that require arbitrators' details to be included in the award also apply by analogy to tribunal secretaries. Following the judgment, arbitrators should always refer in detail to the particulars of the secretary employed in the arbitration (which is always a best practice) in order to avoid unnecessary complications that may lead to the setting aside of the award.
In international trade, a general reference is sufficient to validly incorporate an arbitration clause contained in another document under Article II(2) of the New York Convention, provided that the clause is common and known to those engaged in a particular trade. The Piraeus Single-Member First-Instance Court recently ruled on a dispute regarding the enforcement of an arbitral award in Greece under the New York Convention.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court held that the requirement that specific authorisation be obtained for the person acting as a legal representative for the valid conclusion of an arbitration agreement refers only to a person acting as a proxy or an agent of the legal entity and does not refer to an organ of the legal entity – the very function of which is to represent the entity, such as the board of directors or its substitute.
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a violation of the burden of proof rules did not constitute grounds to set aside an arbitral award. This ruling is consistent with the court's previous stance when deciding whether violations of the res judicata effect could form grounds to set aside an arbitral award. It is also in line with the legislature's clear intention to limit state court control in arbitration in order to enhance its effectiveness and finality.
A recent Supreme Court decision held that an arbitration agreement may validly refer to future disputes; in such cases, the agreement must determine the definite legal relationship out of which such disputes will arise, but it is not necessary to refer to specific disputes. Further, the court held that an arbitration agreement does not extend its scope to disputes arising out of a subsequent agreement between the same parties, even if the subject matter concerns the initial agreement.
Hong Kong's Financial Dispute Resolution Scheme will be expanded with effect from January 1 2018 and July 1 2018 by amending the jurisdiction and terms of reference of the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre. Alongside the recent changes to allow third-party funding in arbitration, the changes to the scheme show that alternative dispute resolution is coming of age for financial disputes in Hong Kong where there is an imbalance of power between parties.