Sole Arbitrator Clause In Agreement

It is not uncommon for the parties to insert arbitration clauses giving them the unilateral power to appoint a single arbitrator. Parties (particularly businesses) do so to play a greater role in the formation of an arbitration tribunal and to quickly form an arbitration tribunal without having to go to court to form the arbitration tribunal, which can take time. The standard clause above also gives the parties sufficient flexibility to reach an agreement on the appointment of the sole arbitrator if the party continues to communicate and negotiate in good faith. At the same time, it creates a deterrent against delaying tactics by requiring a party to seek judicial appointment from the individual arbitrator at the expense of delays and additional costs. The standard clause may be amended to reflect the requirements of national law and all other specific requirements that the parties may have. In particular, the parties should always ensure that arbitration is mandatory. For example, it is wise for parties wishing to have an ICC arbitration tribunal in mainland China to include in their compromise clause an explicit reference to the ICC`s International Court of Arbitration. If the parties wish to exclude any recourse to the provisions of emergency arbitration, they must expressly decide not to do so by adding the following text to the above clause: 8 The arbitration clause is worded as under “… (ii) Unless the decision has become final, binding and conclusive with respect to paragraph (i) before any dispute or dispute, the decision is made by a single arbitrator appointed by the HSCC CMD for decision by a single arbitrator within 30 days of receiving the design advisor`s application.

If the arbitrator so named is not unable to act or does not intend to resign or resign for any reason, another single arbitrator is appointed in the manner above. This person has the right to pursue the reference of the stage where he was abandoned by his predecessor… (Enhancement provided). Therefore, the law as it is post Perkins Eastman is that a party cannot be delegated with the unilateral power to appoint an arbitrator and form an arbitral tribunal. This does not change the position on a party`s right to nominate its candidate to a three-member arbitration tribunal. The Bombay High Court in the Lite case (decided on 4 December 2019) summarized all the judgments and confirmed the above position.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.