The tribunal

Choosing your tribunal

This Practice Note : choosing your arbitral tribunal sets out some practical tips about how to choose the right people to form the arbitral tribunal. It emphasises the importance of appointing the tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration agreement and the considerations you may take into account when preparing a shortlist of potential candidates.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Choosing your arbitral tribunal.

Questions for potential arbitrators

This Practice Note considers the purpose and value in obtaining information on potential arbitrators. It sets out possible questions to consider asking potential candidates and details on the means by which such information may be gathered, such as arbitration questionnaires and resources that collate data on arbitrators. It also considers the drawbacks, such as confirmatory bias that may arise due to the use of pre-arbitration questions.

For further guidance, see Practice Note: Questions for potential arbitrators.

Appointing the tribunal under the AA 1996 in England and Wales

This Practice Note sets out how to appoint a tribunal in an ad-hoc arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996)

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

Arbitration Clause invalidated by Swedish court—missing explicit CMR reference (NTG Multimodal GmbH v If Skadeförsäkring AB)

Arbitration analysis: In a dispute between If Skadeförsäkring AB (‘If Skadeförsäkring’) and NTG Multimodal GmbH (‘NTG’), the Svea Court of Appeal held that an arbitration clause in a contract falling within the scope of the CMR Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (‘CMR’) was invalid. Because the clause instructed the application of domestic law rather than expressly the CMR, the clause was deemed void under article 41 CMR and the award was set aside. In the alternative, If Skadeförsäkring argued that NTG had ratified or entered into a new arbitration agreement by invoking the clause to support an application to dismiss court proceedings abroad. However, the court observed that those proceedings concerned different claims and held that the invocation of the arbitration clause did not evidence an intention by NTG to ratify or conclude a new arbitration agreement. Finally, with respect to costs, If Skadeförsäkring contended that NTG’s participation bound it to the SCC arbitration rules and obliged it to contribute to the advance on the costs of the arbitration. The court rejected this argument, noting that NTG had from the outset contested arbitral jurisdiction and could not be deemed to have accepted the SCC arbitration rules merely by participating to safeguard its substantive interests. The decision underscores that CMR-governed contracts with arbitration clauses must expressly instruct the tribunal to apply the CMR under article 33; a reference to national implementing law is insufficient. It also shows that alleging ratification of a new arbitration agreement carries a heavy evidential burden, and conduct in relation to foreign proceedings generally will not suffice. Finally, the case shows that participation solely to contest jurisdiction does not amount to acceptance of the SCC arbitration rules for the purposes of costs. Written by James Hope, partner at Advokatfirman Vinge KB, and Erik von Zweigbergk, associate at Advokatfirman Vinge KB.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents