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
the recent QMUL/White & Case survey ‘Improvements and innovations in International Arbitration’ study one of the most popular potential innovations from respondees was a requirement that tribunals commit to, and notify parties
of, a schedule for deliberations and delivery of a final award. If the institutions, or legislation, enforced strict timetables on tribunals could parties have a better experience of arbitration?
The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) had already identified this issue and provide for the tribunal to seek to make its final award as soon as reasonably possible following the last submission from the parties (whether made orally
or in writing), in accordance with a timetable notified to the parties and the Registrar as soon as practicable (if necessary, as revised and re-notified from time to time). Further, when a tribunal (other than a sole arbitrator) sets establishes
a time for what it contemplates will be the last submission from the parties (whether written or oral), it will set aside adequate time for deliberations as soon as possible after that last submission and notify the parties of the time it has set
aside (LCIA, art 15.10). The LCIA therefore doesn’t go so far as to set a timetable for the tribunal but it is a step in the right direction. That said, there is no evidence as to whether this has been effective in reducing the time spent
deliberating and producing an award but hopefully the mere existence of the rule will focus tribunals and parties mind and, at very minimum, give the parties some ground to nudge the LCIA to nudge the tribunal along if the award is not produced as
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has long had a rule that the award will be produced within 6 months of the last signature by the tribunal or the parties on the Terms of Reference. If this has happened in anyone’s experience (save for
in expedited situations) please do let me know (!) as in the usual course of things the deadline is routinely extended or falls by the wayside.
In the recent proposed amendments to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the drafters provided for an award to be rendered within 12 months of the arbitrator(s)’ appointment which the parties may agree to extend by six months or may
be further extended by the court. While it remains to be seen how the Ordinance will be implemented in practice, this does seem to follow the trend and reflect what parties actually want.
The difficulty with this issue is that we want the award to be right (and preferably in our favour).Chivvying the tribunal for an award risks annoying them and, while this should of course never influence the outcome of the award, it is not too far-fetched
to imagine that a party who riles the tribunal is not going to have presented themselves in the best light. That said, one of the benefits of institutional arbitration is that it can act as the intermediary between the tribunal and the parties to
avoid this concern.
If, however, there is a ground-swell of opinion that awards should, save in exceptional circumstances be produced within a set period and the tribunal should be required to set aside time for deliberations after the hearing (and for the parties to be
know when those deliberations are taking place and, potentially, for how long) maybe it would make the whole agonizing process of waiting for an award a little easier to bear. There would also be the benefit of certainty for the parties themselves.
The outcome of an arbitration can have major impacts on their business and it would assist them to plan if they knew when their fate would be decided.
It will be interesting to see whether other institutions introduce a requirement on tribunals to set aside time for deliberations and indicate when the award will be delivered (the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) has already said that it will
revise its rules in 2017 though not specifically on this issue). While the costs of the arbitration are, to some extent, inevitable (the other major grips of respondees from the QMUL survey), maybe this is an area where legislation and institutions
can improve parties’ experience of the arbitral process.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234