Ad Hoc Arbitration Agreement Sample

Ad hoc arbitration, on the other hand, is arbitration conducted by the parties themselves. It shall be conducted in accordance with the rules adopted for the purposes of the specific arbitration procedure without the participation of an arbitration institution. The parties may draft the Arbitration Rules themselves, leave the Rules to the discretion of the arbitrators or, as is more usual, issue specific rules for ad hoc arbitration, such as the UNCITRAL Rules.4 They then proceed to arbitration directly in collaboration with the arbitrator. [11. The parties agree that the arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the IBA Rules of Evidence in the version in force at the time of [this Agreement/commencement of arbitration].] 1 Article 7 of the CIETAC Rules allows the parties to designate a place of arbitration outside China; however, this rarely happens. In a 2011 interview, Yu Jianlong, the Secretary General of CIETAC, answered a question on this point as follows: “Every year we have several cases in Hong Kong, and I remember one in Salzburg and another in Perth, Australia. We have also encountered cases where parties have chosen a seat in the United States. But it`s still rare. This is due in part to the fact that CIETAC mainly deals with China-related disputes, and a headquarters in China allows easier access to Chinese courts for parties who can provide assistance such as interim measures under China`s Arbitration Law. Alison Ross, An Interview with Yu, Global Arbitration Review (September 5, 2011). Individual referees mean less effort and delay. In general, arbitration conducted by a single arbitrator will cost about half as much (or even less) than a three-arbitrator arbitration.

However, the extra layer of bureaucracy imposed by institutional arbitration can lead to delays and additional costs will inevitably have to be paid. Although arbitrators` fees are reduced because they have less administration to do, the institution`s fees can add a significant amount to the total cost. This applies in particular if large amounts are disputed and the costs are calculated according to the value of the claims. Ad hoc is also favoured in certain sectors, e.B. in the maritime transport sector, or by contracting parties applying sophisticated arbitration. Third, in complex cases, the court may try to appoint a secretary to deal with the significant administrative burden. The additional cost of secretarial fees increases the burden of arbitration. All arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules.

These can be chosen by the arbitrators themselves, but it is preferable for the parties to determine the rules to be used. In principle, there is a choice between arbitration according to “institutional” rules and arbitration according to ad hoc rules. 4. The Court shall convene a meeting with the parties or their representatives (in person or by telephone) as soon as possible after its constitution in order to determine the procedure to be followed in the arbitration proceedings. The above information is provided for informational and educational purposes only. AtlAS is a non-profit corporation that is not engaged in legal practice, and this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship. There is no legal advice. An ill-adapted dispute resolution provision is worse than the complete absence of a dispute resolution provision. You must not act or rely on the information contained on this website without first seeking the advice of legal counsel in your jurisdiction.

The information contained on this website may not be up to date, especially as the standard arbitration clauses of different arbitration institutions sometimes change. This website is not systematically updated to reflect these changes. The legal effect, relevance and timeliness of the clauses set out on this website must be assessed in the specific context of the transaction and/or dispute of the parties and independently of applicable law. AtlAS makes no representations or warranties as to the applicability of the arbitration clauses set forth on this website. “Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or its breach, termination or invalidity shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce.” The applicable law of the arbitration agreement is […] “Any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including the establishment, interpretation, breach or termination of this Agreement, including whether the claims invoked are subject to arbitration, shall be submitted to arbitration and finalized in accordance with the JAMS International Arbitration Rules. The tribunal shall be composed of [three arbitrators/one arbitrator]. The place of arbitration is [Atlanta, Fulton County, State of Georgia, United States]. The language to be used in arbitration is [language]. The decision on the arbitral award of the arbitrator(s) may be registered with any court of competent jurisdiction.┬áMost countries have laws that govern arbitration that takes place on their territory. This does not replace the arbitration rules chosen by the parties, but provides a framework within which those rules operate. The national laws of many countries are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law7 on International Commercial Arbitration. The Model Law is intended to compensate for differences between national laws and to propose a common standard for the practice of arbitration.8 4 Article 20 of the SCC Rules allows the parties to determine a seat of arbitration.

Scc-administered arbitration sometimes takes place outside Sweden, although rarely. See Finn Madsen, Commercial Arbitration in Sweden 202, 124 (3rd ed., 2007). These issues can be addressed at an early stage of the procedure. However, if the parties prefer more certainty, they would like to address this issue in the arbitration clause, for example by stipulating that issues relating to the creation of documents are governed by the International Bar Association Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration.11 They may also prefer to indicate that the Prague Rules are applicable.12 These are more recent and less scrutinized than the Rules of the The IBA and are generally seen as a more civil law-oriented approach to procedure and, in particular, to the preparation of documents. In any case, make sure you know what is right for you if you want one of them to be taken back. This guide examines the differences between institutional and ad hoc conciliation methods as well as the advantages and disadvantages of each method. National law also confers powers on the courts of the registered office with regard to certain aspects of arbitration. Generally speaking, these include issues such as the ability of parties to request assistance from national courts (e.g.

B, an order to freeze assets or to take evidence), the possibility of challenging court decisions and the arbitral award, and enforcement provisions. National law and the general attitude of the judiciary in a country determine the degree of support or intervention of these courts. Interventionist jurisdictions in which courts intervene in arbitration to the detriment of their autonomy should be avoided. Most institutions recommend model clauses that can be used in the adoption of their institutional rules. These are reviewed from time to time and so it is best to check the websites. We list the main institutions and provide links to their examples of clauses below. One of the main advantages of the ad hoc procedure is its flexibility, which allows the parties to decide for themselves on the dispute settlement procedure. However, this requires, of course, a higher level of effort, cooperation and expertise on the part of the parties to establish the arbitration rules. Often, parties misunderstand each other when they have different nationalities and come from different jurisdictions, which can lead to delays. Once a dispute has arisen, this may thwart the parties` intention to resolve the dispute on an ad hoc basis.

In choosing institutional arbitration, the Parties agree to adopt the rules of procedure of a particular institution and to request that institution to manage and supervise the conduct of all arbitration proceedings initiated under the arbitration agreement. If you choose arbitration because you want your disputes resolved by someone in the same industry or have special expertise, it makes sense to state this in the arbitration agreement. It is common to see arbitration clauses in which the parties agree that an arbitrator must be a member of a particular organization or have special qualifications. Another reason why ad hoc arbitration is more cost-effective than institutional arbitration is that the parties only have to pay fees for arbitrators, lawyers or representatives and the cost of conducting the proceedings, rather than paying fees to an arbitration institution. .