Unicitral model law on commercial arbitration

Uncitral model law countries

In short, only the most egregious and patently unfair circumstances will meet the high bar that would warrant judicial intervention. The combined effect of these differences is to produce setting-aside regimes which, although largely seeking to implement the same policies, work in rather different ways. For obvious reasons, art 34 ML contains no provision corresponding to art V. One significant area of difference is the setting aside of awards. The Court of Appeal affirmed the very limited bases on which a court can set aside an arbitral award on either procedural or substantive grounds. Nevertheless, English law retains a number of distinctive features and, even in those areas in which the objectives of the Act broadly mirror those of the Model Law, there are places where the two legislative schemes diverge. This point can be illustrated by the quite common scenario in which, after an award has been rendered, one of the arbitrants typically, a respondent whose defence was wholly or partly unsuccessful challenges the award on the basis that it fails to address an issue which was raised in the arbitration. This article is reproduced with kind permission from the authors and appeared in Lexology in December The Arbitration Act approaches setting aside in a very different way. Offshore v. The arbitration concerned a slurry pipeline construction project related to a nickel mine in Madagascar. The Model Law, by contrast, follows the modern international practice of making no provision for setting aside because the tribunal did not reach the correct result, either on the facts or the law. First, in keeping with the traditions of English arbitration law, the Act provides that, albeit in carefully circumscribed and narrow circumstances, an award may be set aside on the basis that, as regards the merits of the dispute, the arbitral tribunal made an error of English law s Gasmac Inc.

Decision background Consolidated Contractors Group S. However, in all cases the Ontario Court of Appeal found that CCG had failed to demonstrate the key element of a procedural fairness claim: that CCG had been denied the opportunity to present its case to the Tribunal.

Ambatovy Minerals S.

Salient features of uncitral model law on international commercial arbitration

The combined effect of these differences is to produce setting-aside regimes which, although largely seeking to implement the same policies, work in rather different ways. This article is reproduced with kind permission from the authors and appeared in Lexology in December This point can be illustrated by the quite common scenario in which, after an award has been rendered, one of the arbitrants typically, a respondent whose defence was wholly or partly unsuccessful challenges the award on the basis that it fails to address an issue which was raised in the arbitration. The Court of Appeal referred to the leading statement of the law in respect of public policy challenges to foreign awards in Schreter v. One significant area of difference is the setting aside of awards. The Arbitration Act approaches setting aside in a very different way. Nevertheless, English law retains a number of distinctive features and, even in those areas in which the objectives of the Act broadly mirror those of the Model Law, there are places where the two legislative schemes diverge. Offshore v. First, in keeping with the traditions of English arbitration law, the Act provides that, albeit in carefully circumscribed and narrow circumstances, an award may be set aside on the basis that, as regards the merits of the dispute, the arbitral tribunal made an error of English law s Ambatovy Minerals S. On this issue, the Model Law is, at first blush, simplicity itself.

First, in keeping with the traditions of English arbitration law, the Act provides that, albeit in carefully circumscribed and narrow circumstances, an award may be set aside on the basis that, as regards the merits of the dispute, the arbitral tribunal made an error of English law s The combined effect of these differences is to produce setting-aside regimes which, although largely seeking to implement the same policies, work in rather different ways.

This point can be illustrated by the quite common scenario in which, after an award has been rendered, one of the arbitrants typically, a respondent whose defence was wholly or partly unsuccessful challenges the award on the basis that it fails to address an issue which was raised in the arbitration.

Gasmac Inc. On this issue, the Model Law is, at first blush, simplicity itself. The Arbitration Act approaches setting aside in a very different way.

Uncitral model law wiki

For obvious reasons, art 34 ML contains no provision corresponding to art V. Gasmac Inc. Offshore v. The Court of Appeal referred to the leading statement of the law in respect of public policy challenges to foreign awards in Schreter v. The arbitration concerned a slurry pipeline construction project related to a nickel mine in Madagascar. Nevertheless, English law retains a number of distinctive features and, even in those areas in which the objectives of the Act broadly mirror those of the Model Law, there are places where the two legislative schemes diverge. In short, only the most egregious and patently unfair circumstances will meet the high bar that would warrant judicial intervention. The Model Law, by contrast, follows the modern international practice of making no provision for setting aside because the tribunal did not reach the correct result, either on the facts or the law. The Court of Appeal affirmed the very limited bases on which a court can set aside an arbitral award on either procedural or substantive grounds. This point can be illustrated by the quite common scenario in which, after an award has been rendered, one of the arbitrants typically, a respondent whose defence was wholly or partly unsuccessful challenges the award on the basis that it fails to address an issue which was raised in the arbitration.

The Court of Appeal referred to one of the few decisions in Canada that addresses this standard of review, Corporacion Transnacional de Inversiones S. For obvious reasons, art 34 ML contains no provision corresponding to art V.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the very limited bases on which a court can set aside an arbitral award on either procedural or substantive grounds.

uncitral model law citation

The Court of Appeal referred to the leading statement of the law in respect of public policy challenges to foreign awards in Schreter v.

Offshore v.

Rated 6/10 based on 72 review
Download
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration