Jurisdiction Challenge On Arbitration Agreement

[19] The language in question refers only to “a difference that is not contemplated or is not taken into account by the provisions of the arbitration procedure.” While it is quite undisputed that an arbitral award issuing a surplus of court powers should be set aside or denied execution, this is not the case when a court refuses to decide, on the basis of its finding, that it is not competent. In particular, it is questionable whether Article V, paragraph 1, point (c) of the New York Convention allows for challenges for infra petita reasons. [19] In the rare cases where a party could even argue in favour of overturning an arbitration award, it relied on the provisions of the applicable law. Example: in GPF in Poland[20] Mr. Justice Bryan of the London Commercial Court overturned a sentence handed down under the auspices of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce, in which the court dismissed the complaint of indirect or rampant expropriation and violation of the ILO standard of fair and fair treatment between the Belgium-Luxembourg Economic Union and Poland. In an unprecedented decision, Bryan J. replaced his own conclusion that the ILO gives an arbitration tribunal jurisdiction to rule on such claims, thus overturning the Tribunal`s findings to the contrary. It should be noted that the basis for this decision is Section 67 (1) (a) of the English Arbitration Act of 1996, which states that “[a] parties to arbitration proceedings (after notification to other parties and the court) may be applicable to the court . . . . To challenge the decision of the Court of Arbitration concerning its material competence.┬áThis broad language gives a court more latitude to make the kind of decision Bryan J.

made. It remains to be seen whether similar decisions will be taken in other jurisdictions. One of them that comes to mind is the United States, where the Federal Arbitration Act allows courts to issue a sentence “if the arbitrators have exceeded their powers or executed so imperfectly that no mutual, final and final decision on the object filed has been made.” [21] However, this particular departure from the general grounds of Article V of the New York Convention has been, in practice, a short time.