Conducting international arbitration

A quick guide to arbitration procedure

While there is no prescribed format that arbitrations must follow, this Practice Note provides a step-by-step guide of the procedural format of many arbitrations, with information on each stage of the arbitral process from considerations prior to commencement through to the making of the award. See Practice Note: A quick guide to the arbitration process.

Arbitration—venues and other practical matters

This Practice Note gives useful guidance on venues where arbitral proceedings may be held in London, including contact details for those venues. This Note also identifies issues that parties preparing for a hearing should consider, such as translators, the number of rooms required for the hearing and the use of technology in the hearing. See Practice Note: Arbitration in London—venues and other practical matters.

Drafting statements of case and memorials in international arbitration

This Practice Note provides practical guidance on the use of statements of case and memorials in international arbitration proceedings (sometimes referred to as pleadings in international arbitration proceedings). The Practice Note considers the definitions and differences between statements of case and memorial approaches, the relevance

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