Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
This year’s Vis Moot problem is based on an ad hoc UNCITRAL Rules arbitration and it suggests that complications can arise if an institution is not involved. Meanwhile a real life Russian court of appeal decision has found a clause providing for ad hoc arbitration in London under the UNCITRAL Rules to be invalid because it did not identify an administering institution. Ad hoc arbitration is not a mystery spoken in Latin: it remains first choice for the majority of international commercial arbitrations in London.
I have a walk on part in the reported judgment of Exmek Pharmaceuticals SAC v Alkem Laboratories Ltd  EWHC 3158 (Comm). I had just taken up post as Registrar of the LCIA in April 2008 when two representatives of the claimant travelled from Peru and visited our offices for the purpose of issuing an arbitration claim there.
The contract in dispute provided for ‘arbitration in the UK in accordance with the provisions of the law in the UK’. It did not provide for arbitration under the LCIA Rules, as I explained to the claimant’s representatives. The LCIA couldn’t help unless both sides agreed.
No such agreement was reached and eventually the other side commenced arbitration itself. Its appointed arbitrator became the sole arbitrator by default. When the arbitrator made an award confirming his own jurisdiction, that award was challenged by the Peruvian company under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. See our News Analysis Unsuccessful s 67 challenge includes determination of ‘UK law’ (Exmek v Alkem).
In the course of his judgment, Burton J considered the principle that contractual provisions should be construed in favour of validity rather than invalidity. He quoted the Latin maxim ‘ut res magis valeat quam pereat’, explaining that he found it useful to quote it in Latin ‘particularly in these days when The Times Latin crossword is encouraging the rebirth of Latin’.
Earlier in his judgment, Burton J had used more Latin when he noted that it was common ground that ‘on any basis there was to be an ad hoc arbitration’.
Parties from outside the UK, unfamiliar with newspaper crosswords in Latin (and with a judicial culture which endorses them), may not readily understand the two words ‘ad hoc’. Internet searches for ‘arbitration UK’ and ‘arbitration London’ both bring the LCIA to the forefront. Ad hoc arbitration doesn’t make an appearance on such a search. Nor do these two words feature in arbitration clauses.
However, ad hoc arbitration is by far the most popular form of international commercial arbitration in London (see my blog posts, Arbitration statistics and alternative facts and The Silo Effect in Arbitration). In 2016, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) saw more than six times as many new arbitrations submitted to its members (an estimated 1,720) as the LCIA saw new Requests for Arbitration (253). The LCIA itself serves as an appointing authority and provides various administrative services, such as fundholding, to parties in substantial numbers of ad hoc arbitrations, including under the UNCITRAL Rules (50 in 2016).
In his textbook on international commercial arbitration, Gary Born has a table of arbitrations with leading institutions worldwide. The LMAA is the only one whose numbers are consistently in the thousands. But the LMAA is not an institution; arbitrations conducted under its Terms are ad hoc. As Horace reminds us, ‘quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus’ (‘even the good Homer nods’).
In recent years, the LCIA has been successful in attracting parties to its institutional rules and away from traditional ad hoc arbitration. It saw a doubling of its caseload in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and in the turmoil in the commodities markets in 2008-2009. However, ad hoc has held steady in London and remains first choice in the majority of disputes arising from international commerce.
Ad hoc is perceived to have several potential advantages over institutional arbitration, including:
Proponents of institutional arbitration would counter with:
For a more detailed discussion, see our Practice Notes What is ad hoc arbitration? and What is institutional arbitration?
Ad hoc is favoured in particular markets, such as shipping, and generally by experienced arbitration practitioners and parties who prefer to avoid institutional overlay and its associated costs. Users can have different perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of the respective procedures. What matters in international dispute resolution is choice and for choice to be real, diversity is essential. So is education: whatever their level of Latin, parties need to understand their choices.
It is with some dismay and puzzlement that practitioners in London are watching developments at other seats, such as in China, Russia and India where institutional arbitration is increasingly treated as necessarily superior to ad hoc. The voice of ad hoc arbitration needs to be heard more loudly: it can be heard in many different languages, not just Latin.
Some links in the article require a Lexis®PSL subscription, click here for a free trial to access.
0330 161 1234