Understanding institutional and ad hoc arbitration

What is institutional arbitration?

This Practice Note introduces what it means for a dispute to be referred to arbitration under a set of institutional rules. It gives details of the main institutional arbitration bodies and links to bespoke content about them. The note also discusses when institutional arbitration would be appropriate and sets out the advantages and disadvantages of arbitrating under institutional rules.

See Practice Note: Institutional arbitration—an introduction to the key features of institutional arbitration

What is ad hoc arbitration?

This Practice Note gives information about arbitrations that are conducted without the supervision of an arbitral institution, known as ad hoc arbitration. Arbitration under national legislation such as the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), or under the UNCITRAL Rules which are not administered by an institution would fall into this category. The note sets out the advantages and disadvantages of choosing ad hoc arbitration and gives a precedent ad hoc arbitration clause that may be used as an arbitration agreement.

See Practice Note: Ad hoc arbitration—an introduction to the key features of ad hoc arbitration

Comparing institutional and ad hoc

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