Blog

Latest Industry News

Vacate Arbitration Agreement

In this case, there was no dispute about the applicable law. In arbitration, in the Court of Justice and before the Court of Appeal, the parties agreed on the applicable provisions of the law and on the prohibition of certain employer activities. However, there was no written justification for the decision by the arbitrators. While this may have been useful in the adjudication of this case, and while most parties to the arbitration proceedings want a written decision if the arbitral award was not exactly as intended, there is no universal requirement for a written statement. For example, the rules of the American Arbitration Association provide that if the parties make the request before the arbitration hearings and the arbitrators agree, a written decision explaining the arbitral award will be made. The Halligan Court of Appeal did not directly criticize the practice of making an arbitral award without a written decision. In the absence of a written decision, however, the Court of Appeal could not find any justification for the decision that the court could imagine, which would be credible and bearable. As a result, the negative decision was set aside because the Court of Appeal found that the arbitrators clearly disagreed with the law because they did not explain their outcome. While arbitration can sometimes be faster and less expensive than court proceedings, one of its main drawbacks is that there is generally no right to an “appeal” typical of an arbitral award, regardless of the error of an arbitral award.

In another recent case, for example Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. OSRAM Sylvania, Inc., 366 F. Supp.3d 160 (D. Mass. 2019), the United States The Massachusetts District Court refused to set aside an arbitral award on any of these grounds, after finding that, despite the moving party`s argument to the contrary, the arbitrator “did not ignore the simple terms” of the parties` contract, effectively adapted his award to those conditions, and “did not ignore what the agreement specifically and explicitly provided for.” Id. at 168-169. Although, for example, the moving party argued that “the arbitrator exceeded its powers” by awarding the opposing party certain significant amounts of costs and attorneys` fees that only protected itself against its contractual rights and not its overlapping copyrights, the Tribunal found that “[t]he did not point out” during the trial: How the arbitrator was careful not to ignore, go beyond or rewrite the contract, which, according to the Tribunal, would not have been admissible.8 “We do not believe that the party challenging the suitability of a case for arbitration is subject to a burden of conviction when arguing before the District Court that an ineligible case played a role in determining an arbitral award. However, in cases where the claims involved more than one claim, such arbitral awards provide little basis for the courts to determine whether an arbitral award was based, at least in part, on claims the conciliation of which had never been agreed upon by the parties. In this context, following a work of persuasion would therefore undermine our fundamental objective of ensuring that arbitration agreements are “applied in accordance with their terms”. See First Options, 514 U.S.

at 947 (internal citations omitted). In the present case, it is sufficient for the claimants to prove that the Johnsons filed an ineligible request for arbitration and that the arbitration panel may have relied on that request in preparing its award. Accordingly, we assume that the body has exceeded its jurisdiction by rendering an arbitral award based on an investment that is not eligible for arbitration. See 9 U.S.C. § 10 a, paragraph 4. (Highlighted only here) In approving the owner`s claim and setting aside the arbitration award regarding the invalidity of the warranty, the court decided that “the arbitrator exceeded his or her jurisdiction under the FAA by prospectively invalidating the [parent company`s] warranty, while rewriting the terms of the NOA [the company agreement between the insolvent subsidiary and the owner] and requiring the owner: To accept it. Because “the parties never intended to give this power to the arbitrator”. Id….

Back to top