Consolidation under institutional rules in two-party arbitration
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. Court ordered consolidation 2
III. Consolidation under institutional rules 5
A. Common provisions 6
B. Criteria used 7
(i) Link between the cases – same legal relationship 7
(ii) Compatibility of the agreements 10
C. Relevant circumstances 11
D. Different arbitrators have already been appointed 11
IV. Conclusions 13
A. Increasingly important role of institutions 13
B. Institutional rules impose layered criteria 13
C. Assessment 14
V. Bibliography 16
I. Introduction
Institutional rules adequately address consolidation problems raised in two-party disputes. These rules use the same legal relationship created by the parties and the compatibility …show more content…
The Netherlands Civil Code (art. 1046) and some Australian states (art. 27C Victoria Commercial Arbitration Act 2011, art. 27C South Australia Commercial Arbitration Act 2011) and New Zealand (art. 6(2) New Zealand Arbitration Act) contain such provisions. This allows for more freedom to the parties and is more in line with the party autonomy principle in international commercial …show more content…
Most jurisdiction do not contain provisions dealing with consolidation and neither does the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The U.S., England (sec. 35 Arbitration Act 1996), France (art. 1520 Code of Civil Procedure), Switzerland (art. 373(3) Code of Civil Procedure) , allow consolidation only if parties consent thereto. Some countries are quite supple and allow implicit consent (eg in France and the U.S. ). Implied consent may appear through the language of the arbitration agreement, the addenda do the main contract, the course of dealings between the parties or the incorporation of institutional rules permitting
Table of Contents
I. Introduction 1
II. Court ordered consolidation 2
III. Consolidation under institutional rules 5
A. Common provisions 6
B. Criteria used 7
(i) Link between the cases – same legal relationship 7
(ii) Compatibility of the agreements 10
C. Relevant circumstances 11
D. Different arbitrators have already been appointed 11
IV. Conclusions 13
A. Increasingly important role of institutions 13
B. Institutional rules impose layered criteria 13
C. Assessment 14
V. Bibliography 16
I. Introduction
Institutional rules adequately address consolidation problems raised in two-party disputes. These rules use the same legal relationship created by the parties and the compatibility …show more content…
The Netherlands Civil Code (art. 1046) and some Australian states (art. 27C Victoria Commercial Arbitration Act 2011, art. 27C South Australia Commercial Arbitration Act 2011) and New Zealand (art. 6(2) New Zealand Arbitration Act) contain such provisions. This allows for more freedom to the parties and is more in line with the party autonomy principle in international commercial …show more content…
Most jurisdiction do not contain provisions dealing with consolidation and neither does the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The U.S., England (sec. 35 Arbitration Act 1996), France (art. 1520 Code of Civil Procedure), Switzerland (art. 373(3) Code of Civil Procedure) , allow consolidation only if parties consent thereto. Some countries are quite supple and allow implicit consent (eg in France and the U.S. ). Implied consent may appear through the language of the arbitration agreement, the addenda do the main contract, the course of dealings between the parties or the incorporation of institutional rules permitting