During Day 2 of #DimsumDialogue, some of our guests discussed whether tribunals are hindered by fear of procedural fairness objections. Some key points of the discussion included:
⏰ 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐁𝐲 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬:
- Guests shared their experiences about parties causing significant delays, sometimes strategically, thus extending the arbitration process.
- For example, the broad interpretation of public policy in award challenges in India led to tribunals often allowing new evidence and submissions well beyond the appropriate timeframe.
⏰ 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐇𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐲 𝐂𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐬:
- Some arbitrators with heavy caseloads may struggle to stay on top of procedural matters, potentially lacking the confidence to be firm with non-compliant parties. Our guests have made a few suggestions:
- For arbitrators to disclose their caseloads and potential conflicts of interest.
- For there to be deadlines for rendering awards in procedural orders to ensure timely resolutions.
⏰ Expedited Arbitration:
- Pre-dispute agreements on expedited timelines, and raised the potential of disputes turning problematic if the complexity of the dispute makes the timeframe unmanageable.
- Some of the arbitrators also recounted instances where the expedited arbitration process was completed quickly, but the rendering of the award took longer than anticipated.
Thank you, Jesse Kennedy for moderating Table 2 on Day 2 of Dimsum Dialogue and sharing a detailed takeaway of the conversation with us. The contributions from Benjamin Hughes, Ben Giaretta FCIArb CArb, Dr Anna Kirk, Sanjeev Kapoor Partner, Khaitan and Co, and Christopher Bailey have enhanced the discussion.
We would love to hear your thoughts on this topic. Share your insights and experiences in the comments below! 👇
#DimsumDialogueDiscussion #ICCA2024 #Arbitration #LegalPractice #ExpeditedArbitration #ProceduralFairness #ConversationalLeadership
