International arbitration News, analytics and practice

8Oct/121

2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process

White & Case LLP and the School of International Arbitration at Queen Mary, University of London have published 2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process with the focus on the views of in-house counsel, arbitration practitioners and arbitrators on the current and preferred practices in the international arbitration process.

The major findings of the survey are related to the following aspects of international arbitration:

  • Selection of arbitrators;
  • Organising arbitral proceedings;
  • Interim measures and court assistance;
  • Document production;
  • Fact and expert witnesses;
  • Pleadings and hearings;.
  • The arbitral award and costs.

2012 International Arbitration Survey: Current and Preferred Practices in the Arbitral Process. PDF is available for download.

Comments (1) Trackbacks (0)
  1. The ruling in this decosiin definitely does not seem to be pro-arbitration! I think the practical effect of the judgment will actually lead to a pro-delay situation (as mentioned by Shantanu – the judgment translates into the process of appointed arbitrators appointing their third arbitrator at leisure with no time limit).Admittedly the 1996 Act does not clearly provide for a situation where the arbitrators “fail to appoint” the third arbitrator. But I think the Court had an excellent opportunity to fill this lacuna by looking at the legislative intent underlying Section 8 of the 1940 Act. The Court does not seem to have appreciated the full import of Section 8 of the 1940 Act – for one, Section 8(1)(b) which provides for cases where arbitrators refuse or fail to act was completely ignored. Secondly, while on the one hand emphasizing the use of different expressions in Section 8(1) of the 1940 Act, the Court did not take its analysis of Section 8(1) to its logical conclusion. In spite of the use of different expressions in Sections 8(1)(a), (b) and (c), the 1940 Act provided for the same remedy to parties for all 3 situations. To my mind, this negates the distinction between failure to appoint and failure to agree as two situations having different implications and/or solutions. The interpretation provide by the Court, however, will only ensure that Parties have no solution if the arbitrators appointed by them are refusing to discharge their responsibility of expeditiously appointing the 3rd arbitrator.


Leave a comment


No trackbacks yet.