Starting an arbitration

This subtopic provides practical guidance on how to start (or commence) arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and related matters, including taking into account pre-arbitration obligations and other considerations.

Generally speaking, this subtopic provides guidance on starting an arbitration under English and Welsh law and the AA 1996, which applies, with some exceptions, to arbitrations seated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Guidance on related court procedure is limited to the courts of England and Wales (England and English are used as convenient shorthand). Practitioners may find some of the guidance relevant to arbitrations seated outside of these jurisdictions.

To compare how arbitrations are commenced in jurisdictions around the world, please see our International Comparator Tool.

Matters to consider prior to starting the arbitration

Prior to commencing arbitration proceedings, or when in receipt of a notice requiring arbitration, it will typically be relevant to consider whether pre-arbitration conditions or formalities have been complied with and act accordingly. Guidance on this and other related matters is included in Practice Notes: AA 1996—starting an ad hoc arbitration and

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Arbitration News

Drawing the line—court review of arbitral institutions’ administrative decisions in Brazil (Vale v B3 & others)

Arbitration analysis: Reversing a first-instance judgment that had dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction and legal standing, the São Paulo Court of Appeals held that Brazilian courts may review administrative decisions rendered by arbitral institutions prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. The dispute concerned a decision by the President of the Market Arbitration Chamber (CAM) applying Article 3.6 of its Rules to appoint all three arbitrators and to disregard respondent Vale S.A.’s prior appointment of a co-arbitrator. The court held that the provision presupposes both a plurality of parties and an actual ‘absence of consensus’, which was not present in the case at hand, as the multiparty claimants acted jointly and with convergent interests up to that stage of the proceedings. It further held that the statutory right of each party to appoint a co-arbitrator under the Brazilian Arbitration Act cannot be displaced by institutional discretion in such circumstances. The decision reinforces the judicial control over institutional acts that affect fundamental procedural rights in arbitration and clarifies the São Paulo Court of Appeal’s stance on the distinction between jurisdictional and administrative acts in arbitration. Written by Renato Stephan Grion, partner at Pinheiro Neto Advogados, and Thiago Del Pozzo Zanelato, senior associate at Pinheiro Neto Advogados.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents