Seiden Law’s Post

After successfully resisting the plaintiff’s application for disclosure of the tribunal’s deliberations in support of its application to set aside an award against the plaintiff (Final Award) in CZT v CZU [2023] SGHC(I) 11, our Head of International Arbitration Koh Swee Yen, S.C. and Partner Alessa Pang, together with Associates Claire Lim, Samuel Teo and Shawn Ang, also prevailed in defending the plaintiff’s application to set aside the Final Award.   In our 30 June 2023 update titled “Records of Arbitrators’ Deliberations to be Produced Only in Very Rarest of Cases, Singapore International Commercial Court Rules” on the SICC’s decision in CZT v CZU [2023] SGHC(I) 11, we highlighted the SICC’s ruling on the confidentiality of records of arbitrators’ deliberations and the high threshold to be crossed before a court would order the production of such records, with the SICC emphasising that such production orders should only be made in “the very rarest of cases”.   The SICC has, in CZT v CZU [2023] SGHC(I) 22, now dismissed the plaintiff’s setting aside application. This latest decision from the SICC reaffirms the high bar to be met by any party seeking to challenge an arbitral award, and reiterates that an allegation of apparent bias on the part of an arbitrator should not be lightly made. To read the full update, click the link below.

Arbitration proceedings are often part of a more complex economic context. In particular, the arbitration proceedings may result in potential recourse claims against third parties. To address such a scenario, Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit e.V. (DIS) German Arbitration Institute launched new supplementary rules for third-party notices in arbitrations it administers. They essentially mirror the idea of third-party interventions which we all know from the state court proceedings in Germany and Poland. How do the supplementary rules work in practice? Does arbitration need more options for third parties? Are more complex procedural rules good for arbitration? These and other questions will be discussed by Christian Borris, Michal Kocur, Katarzyna Michałowska and Christina Cathey Schuetz during the debate organized by DIS, Court of Arbitration at the PCC and Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Konfederacji Lewiatan/Lewiatan Court of Arbitration. Happy to be involved in such an interesting event! Join us on Wednesday, 22 May in Warsaw! #arbitration #thridparties #complexdisputes #DIS #SAKIG #Lewiatan

Mark your calendars 🗓Wednesday, 22 May 2024;🕔5:00 – 6:30 PM🕡‼️ Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej w Warszawie/Court of Arbitration at the PCC together with Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit e.V. (DIS) German Arbitration Institute and Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Konfederacji Lewiatan/Lewiatan Court of Arbitration would like to invite you to participate in discussion on “Supplementary rules for third-party notices in arbitration – German remedy needed/fit for Polish arbitration too?” Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit e.V. (DIS) German Arbitration Institute introduced on 15 March 2024 its supplementary rules for third-party notices (DIS-TPNR) to fill a gap in arbitration proceedings to allow to involve third parties to bind them in future proceedings to fact findings in an arbitration award. For example, a general contractor can use a third-party notice to avoid losing out to its employer in a legal dispute but not being able to take recourse against its subcontractor because the same issues are decided differently in the recourse proceedings. The need for such rules is therefore significant. The DIS-TPNR follow the third-party notice model known from the German Code of Civil Procedure (Sections 72 et seqq.) preventing contradictory decisions and promoting both procedural economy and legal consistency. In that sense in its core is a minimally invasive approach by limiting the third party's role to supporting the party issuing the third-party notice as an intervener. Together with our panelists we will explore how this solution tailored to the German procedural setting as a response to the arbitration users’ needs and expectations might answer some of the Polish procedural issues, if any.   Moderation: Aleksandra Orzeł-Jakubowska (White & Case LLP) Warsaw, Poland   Panelists: Christian Borris (Borris Hennecke Kneisel) Cologne, Germany Michał Kocur (Kocur & Partners) Warsaw, Poland Katarzyna Michałowska (Sołtysiński Kawecki & Szlęzak) Warsaw, Poland Christina Cathey Schuetz (Clifford Chance) London, UK 🏫Place: Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej w Warszawie/Court of Arbitration at the PCC, ul. Trębacka 4; 00-074 Warszawa The panel discussion will take place in English with no simultaneous translation. 📧RSVP: sekretariat@sakig.pl. Space at the event is limited, so early registration is recommended.

PARTY AUTONOMY IS CRUCIAL IN ARBITRATION    There was a sharp focus on how to strike the right balance between efficiency and due process and to what extent due process is a limit to the arbitral tribunal’s discretion at Børsen when Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2023 took place on 5 October. In a debate between attorney Henriette Gernaa, Gorrissen Federspiel, attorney Friedrich Rosenfeld, Hanefeld in Hamburg, and Giuditta Cordero-Moss, Professor at Oslo University - elegantly moderated by Mathias Steinø, Hafnia - Codero-Moss underlined that party autonomy itself does not necessarily means that the tribunal has to accept all of the parties' wishes. "Party autonomy is crucial in arbitration. The process is basically controlled by the parties, who choose to bring the dispute to arbitration. They choose the venue for the arbitration, the composition of the arbitral tribunal, and the scope of the arbitral tribunal’s powers. With their pleadings, they determine the factual limits of the dispute and the remedies that the tribunal may order. The arbitral tribunal may not exceed the power that the parties granted it. However, the arbitral tribunal has the power to evaluate the parties’ pleadings, and it can independently develop a legal reasoning. Sometimes, this may be necessary to ensure that the award is valid and enforceable – for example, the arbitral tribunal may find it necessary to raise issues of competition law, or to evaluate whether an award would infringe rules on corruption or money laundering. At the same time, to ensure that the award is valid and enforceable, the arbitral tribunal needs to strike a balance between party autonomy and its own independent evaluation of the parties’ pleadings. The parties should not be taken by surprise by the arbitral tribunal’s independent reasoning, and they should be given the possibility to present their case and to comment on the basis for the decision. Therefore, it is possible for the arbitral tribunal to have a certain independence from the parties’ pleadings, while at the same time safeguarding party autonomy.” Read more https://lnkd.in/eCeC5ZZt

Enclosed is Decision No.974/2019/QD-PQTT regarding Judgment and Reasons for Annulment of the Arbitration Award. The People's Court of Ho Chi Minh City reviewed case number 75/2019/TLST-KDTM, which involved a dispute between Company C and Company X regarding the annulment of an arbitration award. The court accepted Company C's request to annul the arbitration award issued by the Ho Chi Minh City Commercial Arbitration Center on May 18, 2019. The court's decision was based on several key reasons: 1. Procedural Irregularities: The court found that the arbitration proceedings had violated procedural requirements. Despite Company X's objections to the jurisdiction of the arbitration center, the arbitration panel did not address these objections properly. This constituted a serious violation of procedural fairness. 2. Lack of Agreement on Arbitration Organization: According to Vietnamese law, if parties do not agree on a specific arbitration center or cannot determine one, they must renegotiate the arbitration organization. In this case, the parties did not reach an agreement on the arbitration organization after the dissolution of the originally agreed-upon arbitration center, which led to procedural confusion. 3. Failure to Pay Arbitration Fees: The court noted that there was ambiguity regarding the payment of arbitration fees. While the law requires the party requesting the annulment to pay the court fees, it was unclear whether this applied to the present case. As a result, the court ruled that Company C was not obligated to pay the arbitration fees. Based on these reasons, the court decided to annul the arbitration award. This decision was final and enforceable from the date of issuance, which was August 13, 2019. --------- #TRACENT

With more than a dozen arbitration specialists qualified in Germany, Switzerland and Austria, the DACH region is an important part of our practice. Thanks to Marleen Krueger and Ole Jensen for putting together this insightful note on the proposed reform of German arbitration law. #wilmerhale #arbitration #germany

Germany as the go-to place for arbitration?!? - read the thoughts of my colleagues Dr. Sandra Gröschel and Lisa Oettig, LL.M. on the legal changes planned by the German government #litigationpowerhouse #arbitration

🚀 The German government has unveiled its draft to modernize the German arbitration law, aiming to boost efficiency and transparancy. 🚀 This reform is meant to enhance Germany's appeal as an arbitration hub, promising significant benefits for businesses. Learn more about the key changes and their impact in the below article by my colleague Lisa Oettig, LL.M. and myself.

In your jurisdiction, when you need to enforce an arbitral award, can you ask the courts to order the judgment debtor to disclose his/her assets? Including assets held outside that jurisdiction? What happens if the competent court grants your application, but the judgment debtor does not comply with that? In England, the courts can grant an asset disclosure order in support of enforcing arbitral awards and, if the judgment debtor does not comply with the decision, the courts can find the judgment debtor in contempt of court and give him/her a 12-month custodial sentence, as it happened in the case ADM v GHI. If you want to know more about this (you may want to enforce an award in England), please read the post below, written by Nathan Masih-Hanneghan and I, about the case ADM v. GHI. Feel free to get in touch if you need further information. Special thanks to Dr Crina Baltag, FCIArb , Esmé Shirlow , Olga Sendetska , and Wolters Kluwer: International Arbitration & Mediation for the review and help. Quinn Emanuel #internationalarbitration #arbitration #arbitragem #arbitraje #arbitrage https://lnkd.in/eCmNCsNd

Johannes Hendrik Fahner (Lévy Kaufmann-Kohler) and Darius Eckenhausen (Allen & Overy) discuss a recent decision by the Dutch Supreme Court regarding the annulment of negative jurisdictional decisions in #internationalarbitration.   Under Article 34 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, arbitral awards can be set aside if the arbitration agreement is deemed invalid. However, the blog explains that there is debate over whether the same avenues should be available when a tribunal finds no valid arbitration agreement and declines jurisdiction ❌   The Dutch Supreme Court endorsed the view that negative jurisdictional decisions cannot be subject to annulment in the Netherlands, citing Article 1065(1)(a) of the #Dutch Code of Civil Procedure. The blog explores the intricacies of Dutch civil procedure, underlying policy considerations, and the potential implications for parties seeking remedies in international #arbitration cases 💼   The post concludes by mentioning a complaint brought before the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the asymmetry in #annulment avenues violates the right to access #justice ⚖ #internationallaw #disputeresolution