New ACICA 2021 Arbitration Rules

The Australian Centre of International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) has unveiled revised Arbitration Rules due to enter into force in April 2021. As arbitration continues to be on the rise in Australia, and ACICA enjoys record caseloads, the 2021 ACICA Rules set out ACICA’s vision for the future of arbitration.

The 2021 Rules further strengthen ACICA’s status as the preeminent arbitral institution in Australia. The revision modernises the ACICA Rules by codifying recent practices in relation to technology, virtual and hybrid hearings, and anticipating the needs of the arbitration community in key areas such as consolidation and multi-contract arbitrations, effective case management and costs.

We set out below the salient features of the 2021 ACICA Arbitration Rules (which are broadly similar to those made to the ACICA Expedited Rules).

Notable amendments in the 2021 ACICA Rules

New provisions embracing the digitalisation of arbitration: Virtual hearings and paperless filing

The new rules include timely revisions expressly allowing Tribunals to hold conferences and hearings virtually or in a combined (or ‘hybrid’) form. The holding of virtual hearings has become the norm during the present COVID-19 pandemic, and the revision modernises the ACICA Rules in line with recent trends and practices.

Under the new rules, if a hearing is held virtually it will be deemed to be held at the seat.

ACICA has moved to a default electronic position of requiring e-filing of a Notice of Arbitration and Answer by email or through its dedicated online portal. Notices may also be delivered electronically or by “any other appropriate means that provides a record of its delivery” reflecting evolving practices. The provision on delivery addresses for notices has been extended to include an address “according to the parties’ practice in prior dealings”.

Recognising the increased movement of sensitive information electronically, the Tribunal may adopt measures to protect information shared in the arbitration and ensure any personal data produced or exchanged in the arbitration is processed and/or stored with regard to any applicable law.

Under the new rules, unless the parties agree otherwise, or the Tribunal or ACICA directs otherwise, any award may be signed electronically and/or in counterparts and assembled into a single instrument.

Extended scope for consolidation and multi-contract arbitrations

The 2021 Rules adopt a more liberal approach to consolidation. In this regard, the compatibility of the relevant arbitration agreements has become central in order to allow for consolidation in relation to a vertical chain of contracts.

Article 16 (Consolidation of Arbitrations) states that ACICA may consolidate two or more arbitrations into a single arbitration, if:

  • the parties have agreed to the consolidation;
  • all the claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement; or
  • the claims in the arbitrations are made under more than one arbitration agreement, a common question of law or fact arises in both or all of the arbitrations, the rights to relief claimed are in respect of, or arise out of, the same transaction or series of transactions, and ACICA finds the arbitration agreements to be compatible. (Emphasis added).

ACICA’s power to consolidate proceedings therefore encompasses proceedings arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions, where ACICA finds the arbitration agreements to be compatible.

The 2021 Rules also present a streamlined approach for multi-contract arbitration. Article 18 (Single Arbitration under Multiple Contracts) now allows for composite Notices of Arbitration, which means that parties can commence a single arbitration in respect of disputes under multiple contracts. An arbitration can therefore be commenced under multiple contracts with a single Notice of Arbitration, provided that the Notice includes an application to ACICA addressing the threshold issues for consolidation, together with identifying and providing a copy of each contract and arbitration agreement invoked. In the event ACICA rejects the application for consolidation, the claimant is required to file a separate Notice of Arbitration for each arbitration that has not been consolidated.

In addition, the new Article 19 (Concurrent Proceedings) empowers the Tribunal to manage related proceedings, following consultation with the parties. The Tribunal can exercise case management powers to conduct related proceedings concurrently, or suspend a proceeding, where the same Tribunal is constituted in each arbitration and there is a common question of law or fact. This allows Tribunals to manage related proceedings in a time and cost efficient way.

Early dismissal procedure

The new Article 25.7 (General Provisions) expressly empowers the Tribunal to make an award granting early dismissal or termination of any claim, defence or counterclaim. Consistent with other developments, this provision enhances the Tribunal’s broad powers under the ACICA Rules, now expressly including summary dismissal and early termination.

Effective case management

Time limit for rendering awards

An Arbitral Tribunal is required, absent a shorter period being required by law or the parties, to render an award no later than the earlier of 9 months from the date the file is transmitted to the Tribunal, or 3 months from the date the Tribunal declares the proceedings closed, under the new Article 39.3 (Closure of Arbitration Proceedings).

ACICA may extend these time frames following a reasoned request from the Tribunal, or if ACICA otherwise deems it necessary.

Alternative dispute resolution

The previous version of Article 25 (General Provisions) already required Tribunals to raise for discussion with the parties, as soon as practicable after being constituted, the possibility of using other techniques to facilitate the settlement of the dispute. The 2021 Rules supplement this mandate by specifying that such other techniques to facilitate the settlement of the dispute include mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

In any case, under the new Article 55 (Alternative Dispute Resolution), Tribunals must discuss with the parties the possibility of using mediation, or other forms of ADR, “to facilitate the quick, cost effective and fair resolution of the dispute.” Further, parties can apply for the suspension of the arbitration to allow for mediation or other form of ADR on such terms as the Tribunal considers appropriate, with the arbitration resuming at any time upon the written request of any of the parties.

Third-party funding disclosures

There is a new requirement, under Article 54 (Third Party Funding), to disclose third-party funding and a continuing obligation to disclose any changes to the third-party funding arrangement. In this regard, the Tribunal has the power to order a party to disclose the existence and identity of a third-party funder at any time during the proceedings.

Costs and fees

There are new substantive provisions on deposits for costs and costs decisions by the Tribunal and by ACICA. The new Article 48 (Costs of Arbitration) sets out a detailed list of the items comprising the term “costs of the arbitration” and subsequent Articles govern, in detail, the deposit of costs and the decisions on costs of the arbitration by ACICA and by the Tribunal.

The revised rules state that the Tribunal may make costs decisions at any time during the arbitration, and expressly stipulate the default position that the unsuccessful party shall bear the costs of the arbitration, subject to a Tribunal’s discretion to apportion costs having regard to the circumstances of the case.

Further, under the new Article 49 (Deposit of Costs), the Tribunal will not proceed with the arbitration without ascertaining at all times from ACICA that ACICA is in possession of the requisite funds. In the event that any deposit of costs directed to be paid by ACICA remains unpaid (in whole or in part), the Tribunal may, after consulting ACICA, order the suspension or termination of the whole or any part of the arbitration.

The rules also prohibit the Tribunal from charging additional fees for interpretation, correction, or completion of the award.

If you have any questions about the new rules or how they might affect you, please reach out to the contacts below or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Brenda Horrigan
Brenda Horrigan
Head of International Arbitration (Australia)
+61 2 9225 5536
Chad Catterwell
Chad Catterwell
Partner, Melbourne
+61 3 9288 1498
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Senior Associate, Sydney
+61 2 9322 4903

 

Arbitration is on the rise in Australia

On 9 March 2021, the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) released the inaugural Australian Arbitration Report. The Report analysed data obtained by ACICA and FTI Consulting in the inaugural Australian Arbitration Survey. The Survey collected data on arbitrations commenced, conducted and concluded in the period between 2017 and 2019 with an Australian ‘connection’ from 111 respondents.

Key takeaways

Please click on our infographic below for a summary of the key takeaways, which include:

  • The total amount in dispute for arbitrations that were active during the relevant period exceeded A$35 billion.
  • For international arbitrations, the Survey indicated that the most favoured arbitration rules were those of the SIAC and ICC and the most popular arbitration seat was Singapore.
  • For domestic arbitrations, the most favoured arbitration rules of Survey respondents were those of ACICA followed by the Resolution Institute, with no particular city leading as a favoured seat.
  • There is significant use of arbitration by ‘other’ industries (about 20%), including property, banking, agriculture and others (in addition to construction, engineering, mining and infrastructure).
  • Regrettably, less than 10% of arbitrator appointments were women.

Booming arbitration industry

Strong international and domestic application

The Report identified 223 unique arbitrations with an Australian ‘connection’, meaning: one or more of the parties involved in the arbitration was an Australian entity; the seat of the arbitration was in Australia; or there were participants based in Australia involved in the conduct of the arbitration. The total amount in dispute for these 223 arbitrations exceeded A$35 billion.

Of these 223 arbitrations there was almost a 50:50 split between international (111) and domestic (109) arbitrations (for three arbitrations this question was not answered). However, the amount in dispute in international arbitrations (approx. A$26 billion) far exceeded that in domestic arbitrations (approx. A$9 billion), with about 75% of the quantum in international arbitrations.

For international arbitrations, the Survey indicated that the most favoured arbitration rules were those of SIAC and the ICC and the most popular arbitration seat was Singapore. However, there was also indication of a growing inclusion of ACICA arbitration clauses (now almost equal to the use of SIAC / ICC rules) in cross-border contracts, which we would expect to translate into a greater proportion of Australian-seated ACICA arbitrations in the future.

For domestic arbitrations, the most favoured arbitration rules of Survey respondents were those of ACICA followed by the Resolution Institute. There was no clear winner on which city in Australia was the most favoured seat. This is likely due to the largely uniform commercial arbitration laws applicable in each State/territory of Australia, and the widespread support of the courts in each State/territory for arbitration.

Broad industry use

The bulk of the 223 arbitrations referenced occurred in relation to construction, engineering and infrastructure (about 43%), oil and gas (about 20%), mining and resources (about 13%), and transport (about 4%) industries. There was also a significant use by ‘other’ industries (about 20%), including property, banking, agriculture and others.

These trends are largely consistent with expected sector trends projected by the Queen Mary University of London in the 2018 International Arbitration Survey: The Evolution of International Arbitration released on 9 May 2018, including a strong use of arbitration in construction, engineering and infrastructure, and oil and gas sectors. However, we expect to see greater uptick in arbitration use by the technology, consumer product and banking and finance sectors in the future given the confidentiality and enforceability of the arbitral process.

Tribunal diversity challenges

The Survey also asked questions about diversity, although not all respondents answered those questions. Of the responses received:

These two data trends indicate a preference to appoint high-profile arbitrators who fall within a narrow demographic. A strong track record and familiarity with the common law legal systems found in Australia and the United Kingdom are desirable characteristics for arbitrators involved in disputes with an  Australian connection. However, a more nuanced approach to arbitrator appointments based on sector and subject matter experience will result in a broader pool of arbitrators, and more desirable results for arbitration users.

Chasing efficiency

While 80% of Survey respondents indicated that they were satisfied with arbitration, two key perceived weaknesses of the arbitration process, for some respondents, were costs and time. Further, users remarked that, particularly in the domestic context, there was a “tendency for arbitration to resemble litigation” and “not always follow international best practice”.

The “tendency to conduct arbitration like litigation” can impede arbitration users from maximising the time and cost efficiencies that arbitration can achieve. To unlock tangible efficiency gains, both arbitrators and party representatives must: embrace the flexibility of arbitration; incorporate only those stages of a dispute resolution process that serve a particular dispute; condense stages of the process where appropriate; and leverage international best practices. This can simply be achieved by appointing arbitrators and representatives who have a deep appreciation of arbitration and who can steer the arbitration process in a way most beneficial to parties.

For further information, please contact Brenda Horrigan, Partner, Chad Catterwell, Partner, Guillermo Garcia-Perrote, Senior Associate, Imogen Kenny, Solicitor, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills contact.

Brenda Horrigan
Brenda Horrigan
Head of International Arbitration (Australia)
+61 2 9225 5536
Chad Catterwell
Chad Catterwell
Partner, Melbourne
+61 3 9288 1498
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Senior Associate, Sydney
+61 2 9322 4903
Imogen Kenny
Imogen Kenny
Solicitor, Melbourne
+61 3 9288 1657

 

International arbitration in the South Pacific: a view from Australia

By Brenda Horrigan, Chad Catterwell and Guillermo Garcia-Perrote.

International arbitration is gaining ground across the South Pacific region. There are a wide range of benefits brought about by implementing an effective framework for international arbitration across the region, most prominently increased foreign investment opportunities and the economic advantages that brings.

Presently, eight countries from the South Pacific are parties to the New York Convention: Australia, New Zealand, Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Palau, and Tonga. Three  of those (Palau, Tonga and Papua New Guinea) have acceded to the Convention in the last two years. As more countries in the region accede to the New York Convention and adopt arbitration laws based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, the outlook is increasingly positive in terms of legal certainty and enforcement tools to attract and expand trade and development in the region.

Australia’s proximity, stable political environment, robust legislative framework and resilient economy allow it to be well placed to interact with the South Pacific region in trade and development generally, and in the international arbitration sphere in particular.

International arbitration in Australia

There are multiple factors which make Australia an increasingly active arbitration hub, including its pro-arbitration legislation and judiciary. Australian courts have exhibited a strong commitment to the New York Convention and the Model Law, a tendency towards minimal curial intervention, and widespread citation of international and regional jurisprudence in making decisions supportive of international arbitration.

In addition, Australia has a sophisticated legal profession with considerable international experience and specialist legal skills. Australia is also cost-competitive compared to other arbitral hubs in the Asia Pacific region.

The benefits international arbitration brings for investment and trade in the South Pacific

A stable legislative framework for resolving international commercial disputes creates an environment where foreign investment and trade can flourish.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has implemented, in conjunction with UNCITRAL, a regional “technical assistance” program which aims to establish an effective commercial dispute resolution regime among member countries in the Pacific. The reform framework is focused on international arbitration and devised to boost regional and international investor confidence in order to foster greater foreign direct investment and cross-border trade in the region.

A strong international arbitration framework is indeed vital for securing foreign investment, as investors require the assurance of an efficient and enforceable method of resolving project-related disputes. The positive corollaries of increased foreign investment include economic growth and further infrastructure projects and trade deals.

The South Pacific region has some of the fastest-growing economies in the world and the implementation of arbitration frameworks to boost investments in the area is very much a welcome development.

Australia’s impact in the Pacific

Australia’s role in international arbitration in the region follows a similarly significant role in terms of economic and development assistance in the South Pacific.

As an illustration, in 2020-2021 Australia gave an estimated A$1.44 billion to the Pacific for assistance with development. In light of the major economic impacts of COVID-19 on the South Pacific nations, that assistance will hopefully play a role in their economic recovery. In this regard, Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is implementing specific programs, such as the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific, which will provide financing for transformational energy, water, transport and telecommunications projects.  These commitments solidify Australia’s position as a leading trade, development and legal partner in the region.

Of particular note is the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus (PACER Plus). PACER Plus is a regional development-centred free trade agreement covering goods, services and investment, which opened for signature on 14 June 2017, and has been signed by Australia, New Zealand and nine Pacific island countries (Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu). PACER Plus entered into force on 13 December 2020 – New Zealand, Australia, Samoa, Kiribati, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Niue and Cook Islands are parties to the Agreement. The Australian Government expects it to provide significant benefits to communities, farmers, fishers, businesses and investors.

As discussed above, the development of effective international arbitration regimes is crucial in order to attract investment and foster development. In this regard, Australian arbitration institutions and practitioners are playing an increasingly relevant role in promoting best practices and awareness of international arbitration in the region.

As an example of such leadership, among other initiatives members of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (ACICA) have participated in arbitration and mediation competency-building initiatives for practitioners in Fiji. ACICA recently hosted an event focused on exploring current developments in international arbitration law and practice in the South Pacific, ahead of the Third South Pacific International Arbitration Conference in Sydney on 17 March 2021. These initiatives will hopefully contribute to further progression in the international arbitration space which, in turn, will positively impact the region’s economies.

Brenda Horrigan
Brenda Horrigan
Head of International Arbitration (Australia)
+61 2 9225 5536
Chad Catterwell
Chad Catterwell
Partner, Melbourne
+61 3 9288 1498
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Guillermo Garcia-Perrote
Senior Associate, Sydney
+61 2 9322 4903
Jesse Tizard
Jesse Tizard
Solicitor, Sydney
+61 2 9322 4903

 

COEXISTING WITH COVID-19 [2]: A CATALYST FOR PROGRESS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION?

This blog post was originally published on 16 July 2020. This version of the post has been amended to include an updated table of the individual steps taken by different arbitral institutions and organisations as at 02 October 2020 in response to the evolving situation. 

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues, infection rates in many countries are starting to fall, and businesses and governments alike are seeking to establish a “new normal” recognising that the virus will be present in society for some time yet. Other countries still face climbing numbers and a peak yet to come. For all, the prospect of multiple waves of high infection rates throughout the year and beyond remains. As such, we will continue to see an ever shifting patchwork of lockdowns and other government responses internationally.

In our earlier series of blog posts, we highlighted the individual steps taken by different arbitral institutions, organisations and the wider community as an initial crisis response to the pandemic. We produced a table setting out those steps and will continue to monitor and update this information going forward. An updated table, accurate to 02 October 2020, can be found here.

In this blog post, we turn to the future and look at how the arbitration community continues to respond to the challenges of operating internationally, as different countries prepare in different ways to live with the Covid-19 virus in the medium term at least.

A steep learning curve: the initial response

The initial wave of the pandemic created an unprecedented need for arbitral institutions and organisations to adapt at very short notice to new and different ways of working, and offer solutions to parties and practitioners that would enable disputes to continue to be resolved at a time of quarantine, enforced social distancing and fast-changing government guidance from across the globe. What became clear was that there was no “one size fits all” approach to be taken by those institutions or organisations. Some institutions (such as the SCC) already functioned largely online with online filing systems. For other organisations (such as the LMAA) the majority of their cases were resolved “on the papers” rather than in face-to-face hearings. Other institutions (such as the ICC or LCIA) needed to introduce changes in their processes, enabling cases to be filed virtually while their secretariats worked remotely and for parties and tribunals to communicate online.

As the truly global nature of the pandemic unfolded, one of the first questions faced by parties, arbitrators and practitioners was whether merits hearings ought to be held virtually or postponed. While electronic communication and the use of other online tools in an arbitration is nothing new, most arbitrations, until now, involved a face-to-face substantive hearing on the merits. For many, a shift to a fully virtual merits hearing was, at least initially, viewed as a step too far. We saw many arbitration hearings in March and early April being postponed to later in the year. However, with the realisation that this “new normal” might be with us on a global scale for some time came a change in attitude towards virtual hearings.

The institutional joint statement in April 2020 mirrored the approach of many national courts in encouraging parties to continue with the resolution of disputes, and many arbitral institutions began encouraging arbitrators to adopt virtual hearings wherever possible. As a consequence, many parties with upcoming merits hearings found their arbitrators inclined towards that option.

Where a decision has been taken to hold a hearing virtually, the arbitrators, practitioners and clients involved have been on a steep learning curve. Just as we have all become used to operating through Skype, Teams and Zoom in the workplace, we have adapted to using that same virtual technology (and others) to hold hearings.

There has been a very positive response from a number of practitioners who have participated in virtual hearings, with many surprised at how well they have worked. We have seen the development of guidelines, protocols and procedural orders to govern the efficient and effective running of virtual hearings and to ensure that the hearing remains fair to all.

We have also seen other new ideas and initiatives come from within the community during this challenging time. New websites and initiatives have been launched to help keep practitioners up to date with Covid-19 developments or to facilitate the use of online platforms to enable cases to truly operate virtually.

Responding to an ever-shifting international picture: the need for flexibility

So what does the “new normal” mean going forward?

Commercial arbitration has grown in popularity over the past decades as parties recognise the benefits it brings in cross-border transactions by offering a neutral forum and an adaptable, international, procedure. But the international nature of the parties, practitioners, institutions and arbitrators also means that arbitration must be able to adapt and flex to fit the unique requirements of those international participants, both in terms of their transactions and disputes, but also to the specific implications of the pandemic for each country in which those participants reside.

Clearly, if circumstances require it, all those involved in the process should be able to revert back to “lockdown” ways of working. And if circumstances require it, all the learning of the past months will be able to be put into use in continuing to hold wholly virtual substantive hearings. But what seems more likely is that we will see more flexible and adaptable approaches to respond quickly to the immediate, and often changing, circumstances.

“Hybrid” or “semi-virtual” hearings are likely to be the answer to that need for flexibility. A mixture of virtual and physical attendance will help to mitigate the effects of travel restrictions and local or national lockdowns. They will also enable those involved in hearings (such as the parties and their counsel, the Tribunal and any witnesses or translators that might be involved) to participate to the fullest extent possible. Some participants may meet in a single or in multiple locations, with appropriate social distancing, while others attend virtually. These hybrid hearings can be set up to change format at short notice, enabling those involved to plan for a myriad of different scenarios but ensure that the final hearing remains fair, offering each party the opportunity to put their case.

Impact on the future: a catalyst for change in the post-Covid world?

Many sectors of the economy have proven themselves to be extremely adaptable in the face of the pandemic, and arbitration is no different in that regard. At this stage, however, it is difficult to gauge the longer term impact of Covid-19 on the process and procedure of arbitration globally, particularly if a future vaccine were to reduce or remove the need for social distancing.

However, the longer arbitral participants are required to work in a different way, the more those new ways of working will be seen as the norm. The more positive experiences participants have of virtual or hybrid hearings, the more likely it is that these will remain at least options for future merits hearings. When faced with participants from across the globe, parties may become less comfortable with the expense of holding a face-to-face hearing if they are reassured in the effectiveness of a virtual or hybrid option. Indeed, the dramatic reduction in the carbon footprint of these virtual and hybrid hearings may lead to an environmental “silver-lining” to the pandemic in terms of changes in business practice for many, including in international arbitration.

Most importantly, we have seen innovation and blue sky thinking at its best in the last few months. And that shift in mind-set towards different ways of delivering the product of arbitration effectively and efficiently has been exciting to see and experience. That ability to adapt and change to challenging circumstances is likely to continue, and we will see the longer term impact of that innovation for many years to come.

For more information, please contact Craig Tevendale, Partner, Vanessa Naish, Professional Support Consultant, Charlie Morgan, Senior Associate, or your usual Herbert Smith Freehills Contact.

Craig Tevendale
Craig Tevendale
Partner
+44 20 7466 2445

Vanessa Naish
Vanessa Naish
Professional Support Consultant
+44 20 7466 2112

Charlie Morgan
Charlie Morgan
Senior Associate
+44 20 7466 3868

COEXISTING WITH COVID-19: A CATALYST FOR PROGRESS IN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION?

As the Covid-19 pandemic continues, infection rates in many countries are starting to fall, and businesses and governments alike are seeking to establish a “new normal” recognising that the virus will be present in society for some time yet. Other countries still face climbing numbers and a peak yet to come. For all, the prospect of multiple waves of high infection rates throughout the year and beyond remains. As such, we will continue to see an ever shifting patchwork of lockdowns and other government responses internationally.

In our earlier series of blog posts, we highlighted the individual steps taken by different arbitral institutions, organisations and the wider community as an initial crisis response to the pandemic. We produced a table setting out those steps and will continue to monitor and update this information going forward. An updated table, accurate to 16 July 2020, can be found here.

In this blog post, we turn to the future and look at how the arbitration community continues to respond to the challenges of operating internationally, as different countries prepare in different ways to live with the Covid-19 virus in the medium term at least.

Continue reading

UPDATE [8]: “NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION”: COVID-19 DRAMATICALLY ACCELERATES DIGITALISATION OF ARBITRATION PROCESSES

This eighth (and final) update to a blog post initially dated 7 April 2020 takes into account developments between 25 June – 9 July 2020. These include various institutional changes (set out in the table attached to the blog), as well as perspectives on the development of “hybrid hearings” as some venues start to reopen in light of changing conditions and the easing of government restrictions. This updated blog post also includes the news of the launching of the “Protocol for Online Case Management in International Arbitration” for public consultation (produced by a working group led by Herbert Smith Freehills LLP) and VIAC’s recently announced Vienna Protocol – “A Practical Checklist for Remote Hearings”.

Continue reading

UPDATE [7]: “NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION”: COVID-19 DRAMATICALLY ACCELERATES DIGITALISATION OF ARBITRATION PROCESSES

This seventh update to a blog post initially dated 7 April 2020 has been updated to take into account developments between 12 June – 25 June 2020. These include various institutional changes (set out in the table attached to the blog) as some venues start to reopen in light of changing conditions and the easing of government restrictions, as well as details of the collaboration between the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (CIArb) and the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) to offer a low cost online service to businesses affected by COVID-19.

Continue reading

UPDATE [6]: “NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION”: COVID-19 DRAMATICALLY ACCELERATES DIGITALISATION OF ARBITRATION PROCESSES

This sixth update to a blog post initially dated 7 April 2020 has been updated to take into account developments between 28 May – 11 June 2020. These include various institutional changes (set out in the table attached to the blog) as some venues start to reopen in light of changing conditions and the easing of government restrictions, as well as details on the newly announced “Virtual Arbitration Forum”.

Continue reading

UPDATE [5]: “NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION”: COVID-19 DRAMATICALLY ACCELERATES DIGITALISATION OF ARBITRATION PROCESSES

This fifth update to a blog post initially dated 7 April 2020 has been updated to take into account developments between 14 May – 28 May 2020. These include various institutional changes (set out in the table attached to the blog) as some venues start to reopen in light of changing conditions and the easing of government restrictions, as well as details on new guidance that has been issued by HKIAC on virtual hearings and the SCC on the SCC Platform.

Continue reading

UPDATE [4]: “NECESSITY IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION”: COVID-19 DRAMATICALLY ACCELERATES DIGITALISATION OF ARBITRATION PROCESSES

This fourth update to a blog post initially dated 7 April 2020 has been updated to take into account developments between 30 April – 14 May 2020. These include various institutional changes (as set out in the table attached to the blog), the alliance between Maxwell Chambers, ICDR, and the Arbitration Place of Toronto and Ottawa to provide “global hybrid hearings”, and developments in the guidance being issued by a collaboration of large international law firms led by HSF.

Continue reading