The award

Arbitral awards—types, requirements and effect

This Practice Note covers the types of awards that can be made in arbitration, including final, interim, provisional, default and consent awards. It sets out the requirements of an award and the remedies that the tribunal may order. The Note also deals with the important issues of the date of the award (which is important for appeal and challenge purposes), the way in which notice of the award is given and the effect of the award. It also covers the issue of costs, which may be dealt with in a separate award after the tribunal has made its decision on liability.

For more information, see Practice Note: Arbitral awards—types, requirements and effect.

Partial awards in arbitration

This Practice Note discuss various types of award that a tribunal may make before issuing its final award. An interim or partial award may be on a specific issue and may be issued at any time, though there are rules that must be followed for applications for awards on jurisdiction. This note covers the nature of an interim award (in that it is not

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