Finance arbitration

P.R.I.M.E. Finance

These Practice Notes reflect the current edition of the Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance (P.R.I.M.E.) Rules that came into force on 1 January 2022.

P.R.I.M.E Finance background, structure and purpose

This Practice Note gives some background to the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules to assist practitioners to understand the context, use and advantages of the rules. For more information, see Practice Note: P.R.I.M.E. Finance—background, structure and purpose.

P.R.I.M.E. Finance—commencing an arbitration

This Practice Note sets out how to commence an arbitration under the P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules by issuing a Notice of Arbitration. For more information, see Practice Note: P.R.I.M.E. Finance (2022)—commencing an arbitration.

P.R.I.M.E. Finance—responding

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

Uganda Commercial Court extends time for setting-aside applications and clarifies arbitrator’s lien

Arbitration analysis: In a bold ruling, the Uganda Commercial Court has broken with binding Supreme Court precedent and its own prior decisions, holding that it has authority to extend the one-month statutory time limit for applying to set aside an arbitral award where there is prima facie a serious ground for setting aside and the interest of justice requires that time be extended. Though open to doubt, the ruling is likely to influence future legislative reform. The court also clarified the effect of an arbitrator’s lien over an award (exercised due to non-payment of their fees) on the timeline for setting aside, holding that the one-month time limit for the setting-aside application begins to run on the date on which the arbitrator actually avails the award to the parties (including the party in default of payment) or makes it available for their collection (typically from the institution administering the arbitration) and not on the date on which the arbitrator informs the parties that the award is ready but has been withheld under lien or even on a prior date on which the award may have been dated and signed but not availed. This is so regardless of who is to blame for the exercise of the lien or who has paid more than their fair share of the arbitrator’s fees to access the withheld award. This holding might incentivise rather than discourage deliberate non-payment of arbitrators’ fees with the intention of delaying issuance of final awards. Written by Hussein D. Gulam, MCIArb, arbitration and litigation attorney at MMAKS Advocates.

View Arbitration by content type :

Popular documents