Paper on Arbitration

7/28/2019 Paper on Arbitration

1/80

DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School ofLaw

LLM Theses and Essays Student Works and Organizations

8-1-2003

Interim Measures in International CommercialArbitration: Past, Present and Future

Sandeep AdhipathiUniversity of Georgia School of Law

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works and Organizations at DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School of

Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in LLM Theses and Essays by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Georgia School

of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected].

Repository CitationAdhipathi, Sandeep , "Interim Measures in International Commercial Arbitration: Past, Present and Future" (2003).LLM Theses andEssays. Paper 1.http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llm/1
http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llmhttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_worksmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_workshttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/stu_llmhttp://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/http://www.law.uga.edu/http://www.law.uga.edu/


2/80

INTERIMMEASURESININTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATION:

PAST,PRESENTANDFUTURE

by

SANDEEPADHIPATHI

(UndertheDirectionofProfessorGabrielM.Wilner)

ABSTRACT

Thisworkisacomparativestudyoftheavailabilityandhandlingofinterimmeasuresininternationalcommercialarbitrationindifferentlegalsystems.Itstudiesthe

differenceinhandlingofinterimmeasuresandtheneedforaharmonizedstructure.ItalsocontainsareviewoftheproposeddraftamendmenttotheUNCITRALModelLaw

andfurthersuggestsadifferentversionfortheamendment.

INDEXWORDS: InterimMeasures,InternationalCommercialArbitration,ProvisionalMeasures,InterimRelief,UNCITRALModelLaw


3/80



by

SANDEEPADHIPATHI

B.A.,B.L.,UniversityofMadras,India,2000

AThesisSubmittedtotheGraduateFacultyofTheUniversityofGeorgiainPartial

FulfillmentoftheRequirementsfortheDegree

MASTEROFLAWS

ATHENS,GEORGIA

20003


4/80

2003

SandeepAdhipathi

AllRightsReserved


5/80



by

SANDEEPADHIPATHI

MajorProfessor: GabrielM.Wilner

Committee: CharlesR.T.OKelley

ElectronicVersionApproved:

MaureenGrasso

DeanoftheGraduateSchoolTheUniversityofGeorgia

August2003


6/80

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

IwouldliketothankandexpressmygratitudeandappreciationtoProf.Gabriel

M.WilnerforguidingmethroughthisthesisandtheLLMProgramasmyMajor

ProfessorandProgramAdvisor.IwouldalsoliketothankProf.CharlesR.T.OKelley

forhispromptappraisalofmythesisasthesecondreaderandcommitteechair.

Itakethisopportunitytoexpressmygratitudetomyparentsandmybrotherwho

havealwaysstoodbymeandencouragedmeinallmyendeavors.

MycousinSowmiyaR.K.SikalandherhusbandRameshSikaldeservespecial

mentionforallthesupportandguidancetheyhaveextendedthroughout.

IwouldliketothanktheDeanRuskCenterInternational,Comparativeand

GraduateLegalStudiesandtheUniversityofGeorgiaSchoolofLawforprovidingme

withtheopportunitytopursuemyMastersdegreeatthisprestigiousinstitution.Iwould

alsoliketothankallthewonderfulpeopleattheDeanRuskCenterwhowerealways

readyandwillingtohelpmethroughouttheMasterprogram.


7/80

v

TABLEOFCONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................ iv

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1

A.InternationalCommercialArbitrationandTrade ...................................1

B.InterimMeasuresinInternationalArbitration ........................................ 4

2 INTERIMMEASURESININTERIMMEASURESCOMPARATIVE

STUDYOFTHENATIONALLEGISLATIONSANDCOURT

RULINGS ................................................................................................. 8

A.PowerofCourtstoOrderProvisionalRelief..........................................8

B.PowerofArbitratorstoGrantInterimRelief........................................23

C.EnforcementofInterimMeasuresOrderedbyArbitrators ................... 28

3 PROVISIONSFORINTERIMMEASURESUNDERVARIOUS

INSTITUTIONALRULESANDINTERNATIONALCONVENTIONS 36

A.CourtOrderedReliefUnderInstitutionalRulesandConventions ........ 36

B.PowerofArbitratorstoGrantInterimReliefUnderInstitutionalRules

andConventions ................................................................................ 41

C.EnforcementofInterimMeasuresOrderedbytheArbitrators..............46

4 UNCITRALRULESANDMODELLAWPRESENTANDPROPOSED.47


8/80

vi

A.UNCITRALModelLawandRulesonInterimMeasuresTheCurrent

Position..............................................................................................48

B.ProposedDraftforUNCITRALModelLaw........................................50

5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 65

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................... 67


9/80

CHAPTERI

INTRODUCTION

A. InternationalCommercialArbitrationandTrade

1.Arbitrationasanalternativedisputeresolutionmethod

Evolutionofarbitrationasamethodofdisputeresolutioncanbecountedbacktothe

earlydaysofbusiness,whentraderslookedtoathirdpartytosolvedisputesbetweenthem1.The

processhasundergonealotofchangesfromthen,butthebasicnatureofarbitrationremainsthe

same2.Itdependsonacontractualagreementbetweenpartiestoresolvetheirdisputebeforea

selectgroupofnon-governmentalbodyandacceptingitsdecisionasbinding.3Buttheprocess

hasundergonealotofchangesandasincaseofevolutionhasadaptedtothechangingtimes 4.

Enterprisesallovertheworldhavestartedconductingbusinessonaninternationalscale.

Producersandsuppliersfromdifferentcontinentscontractproduceandsellproductsintheglobal

marketthroughbranchesandagents.Firmshavebeguntoincreasinglylookabroadformerger

partners,distribution,franchiseetc.Allthesetransactionsarebasedoncontractsbetweenthe

partiesandthereforethereareboundtobequestionsoninterpretationofclausesandothersuch

issuestobesettledamongtheparties.Arbitrationhasfrequentlybeenthechoiceofthese

1RobertB.vonMehren,FromVyniorsCaseToMitsubishi:TheFutureofArbitrationandPublicLaw,12

BrooklynJ.IntlL583(1986);BretFulkerson, AComparisonofCommercialArbitration:UnitedStates&

LatinAmerica,23Hous.J.Int'lL.537,539(2001);WilliamM.Howard,EvolutionofConstitutionallyMandatedArbitration,48SepARBJ27(1993);ALANREDFERN&MARTINHUNTER,INTERNATIONAL

COMMERCIALARBITRATION2(1996)2SeeREDFERNsupranote13GARYB.BORN,INTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATIONINTHEUNITEDSTATESCOMMENTARY&

MATERIALS1(1994)4J.Schaefer,NewSolutionsforInterimMeasuresofProtectioninInternationalCommercialArbitration:

English,GermanandHongKongLawCompared,vol2.2ElectronicJournalofComparativeLaw,(August

1998),availableathttp://www.ejcl.org/ejcl/22/art22-2.html


10/80

2

enterprisesindealingwiththeircounterparts.Ithasbecomethedominantmethodsofsettlement

ofinternationaltradedisputesandhenceitsimportancehasincreased 5.Arbitrationcanprovidea

highlyefficientalternativemeansofdisputeresolutionforbanksandfinancialinstitutionsandis

sometimespreferabletolitigation6.

2.DevelopmentsintheInfrastructureforInternational

Arbitration

Thedebateaboutarbitrationasaviablealternativetolitigationisstillcontinuing.But,

nowinthetimesavvyworldofentrepreneurs,arbitrationwithitstimesavingfeatureandthejust

andfairresultshasmadeitlookappealingtothebusinessworld 7.Combinedwiththis,theneed

foraneutraldecisionmakerwiththeknowledgeandskillinaspecificareaandthefreedomtoset

thestagehasstrengthenedthepopularityforarbitration8.Asthebusinesscommunityembraces

arbitrationandotheralternatedisputeresolutionmethods,therehasbeenalotofconcentrationon

theproceduralaspectsofarbitration.Ithassetoffthedevelopmentofaninternationallegal

systemforcommerce9.Thougharbitrationisaprocessoutsidethecourtstructure,itneedsstrong

legislationsandcourtassistanceforitseffectivefunctioning 10.Thenationstateshavetocome

forwardtoestablishanetworkandprovidemeanstothewillingpartiestooptoutofthejudicial

systemandadopttheirowndisputeresolutionforum 11.Specificallyintheinternationalarena,

5ThomasE.Carbonneau,TheBalladofTransborderLitigation,56U.MiamiL.Rev.773,778(July2002)6PREAMBLETOCONVENTIONONTHESETTLEMENTOFINVESTMENTDISPUTESBETWEENSTATESAND

NATIONALSOFOTHERSTATES,ICSID(W.Bank)availableathttp://www.worldbank.org/icsid/basicdoc-

archive/11.htm7RichardW.Naimark&StephanieE.KeerWhatDoPartiesReallyWantFromInternationalCommercialArbitration?,57-JANDisp.Resol.J.78,80,81(20022003)82002AnnualReport4,ICSID(W.Bank)availableat

http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/pubs/1998ar/2002_ICSID_ar_en.pdf;PeterK.Yu,CharlesH.BrowerII,WhatITellYouThreeTimesisTrue:U.S.CourtsandPre-AwardInterimMeasureUnderTheNewYork

Convention,35Va.J.Intl.L971(1995);RichardAllanHorning InterimMeasuresofProtection;SecurityforClaimsandCosts;AndCommentaryontheWIPOEmergencyReliefRules(InToto)Article46,9Am.Rev.Int'lArb.155,156(1998)9Carbonneau,Supranote510BORNSupranote3at3

11CatherineA.Rogers,ContextandInstitutionalStructureinAttorneyRegulation:Constructingan

EnforcementRegimeforInternationalArbitration,39Stan.J.Int'lL.1(2003)


11/80

3

wherejurisdictionalissuesplayanimportantrole12,lawssupportingarbitrationareamust.

Though,initiallythestateswerereluctanttorelinquishcontrol,overthecourseofthelastfew

decadesmoreandmorenationshaveenactedlegislationssupportingtheinstitutionof

arbitration13.Variousinternationaltreaties,conventions,nationallegislations,andeven

institutionshavebeenformedtoprovidetheframeworkforinternationalarbitration 14.Apartfrom

thatUNCITRALdraftedamodelcodeforcountriestofollow.Sofarmorethan40countrieshave

enactedlegislationsbasedonthemodelcode15.ApartfromtheModelLaw,UNCITRALhas

comeupwiththeArbitrationRulestosupportpartieswhopreferad-hocarbitration.Evenmany

institutionsofferarbitrationservicesbasedontheUNCITRALArbitrationRules.

Themostimportantandarguablythestartoftheorganizeddevelopmentprocesswasthe

UnitedNationsConventiononRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAwards(the

NewYorkConvention).ThemainpurposeoftheNewYorkConventionwastoobligate

membernationstorecognizeandenforceforeignarbitralawards 16.Thiseffortwasfollowedby

variousotherconventionsincludingtheEuropeanConventiononInternationalCommercial

Arbitration(theGenevaConvention)andInter-AmericanConventiononInternational

CommercialArbitration(theInter-AmericanConvention).UNCITRAL,thelegalbodyofin

U.N.intheinternationaltradelawhasdoneagreatdealofworkinharmonizingthelegalsetup.

UNCITRALfirstintroduceditsArbitrationRulesandlaterondraftedtheModelLaw,whichhas

provedinvaluable17.EvenoutsidetheUnitedNations,alotofinstitutions,bothdomesticand

12BORNSupranote3at213ThomasE.Carbonneau,ArbitralJustice:TheDemiseofDueProcessinAmericanLaw,70Tul.L.Rev.

1945;RogersSupranote11at214RogersSupranote11at3

15SchaferSupranote4

16ConventiononRecognitionandEnforcementofForeignArbitralAward,June7,1959,ArticleI(1),9USCA201,ThisConventionshallapplytotherecognitionandenforcementofarbitralawardsmadein

theterritoryofaStateotherthantheStatewheretherecognitionandenforcementofsuchawardsaresought,andarisingoutofdifferencesbetweenpersons,whetherphysicalorlegal.Itshallalsoapplyto

arbitralawardsnotconsideredasdomesticawardsintheStatewheretheirrecognitionandenforcementare

sought17PieterSanders,UNCITRAL'sModelLawonConciliation,InternationalJournalofDispute

Settlement,Vol.12/2002,1(VerlagRechtundWirtschaft,Heidelberg,2002)


12/80


13/80

5

Theremaynotbeanythingleftforthesuccessfulpartytosatisfyhisclaim23.Areportsubmitted

bytheUNSecretaryGeneralonSettlementofcommercialDisputesclearlyoutlinesthe

importanceofinterimmeasuresandalsothegrowingneedforinterimrelieffromthetribunals,

amongtheparties24.Asarbitrationmovesintofieldslikeenvironmentaldisputesandintellectual

property,wherequickdecisioncouldmeanalot,theneedforinterimmeasuresinarbitrationis

goingtoincrease25.Inthereport,theSecretaryGeneralalsonotesthevariouslegislationsand

amendmentsthathavebeenmadebythenationsandalsointheModelLaw 26.Thethreemain

issueswhendealingwithinterimmeasuresinarbitrationarepowerofthecourtstograntinterim

orders,powerofthearbitratorstoorderinterimreliefandthepossibilityofenforcementof

interimordersgrantedbythetribunal.Enforcementissuestakeawholenewmeaningwhenthe

interimordersinvolvethirdparties.

23RichardW.Naimark&Keer,Supranote19

24SettlementofCommercialDisputes-Possibleuniformrulesoncertainissuesconcerningsettlementof

commercialdisputes:conciliation,interimmeasuresofprotection,writtenformforarbitrationagreement,

ReportoftheSecretaryGeneral,UnitedNationsCommissiononInternationalTradeLawWorkingGroup

onArbitration,32ndSess.,at24(Para.104),A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.108(Jan.2000)Reportsfrom

practitionersandarbitralinstitutionsindicatethatpartiesareseekinginterimmeasuresinanincreasing

numberofcases.Thistrendandthelackofclearguidancetoarbitraltribunalsastothescopeofinterim

measuresthatmaybeissuedandtheconditionsfortheirissuancemayhindertheeffectiveandefficientfunctioningofinternationalcommercialarbitration.Totheextentarbitraltribunalsareuncertainabout

issuinginterimmeasuresofprotectionandasaresultrefrainfromissuingthenecessarymeasures,thismay

leadtoundesirableconsequences,forexample,unnecessarylossordamagemayhappenorapartymayavoidenforcementoftheawardbydeliberatelymakingassetsinaccessibletotheclaimant.Suchasituation

mayalsopromptpartiestoseekinterimmeasuresfromcourtsinsteadofthearbitraltribunalsinsituations

wherethearbitraltribunalwouldbewellplacedtoissueaninterimmeasure;thiscausesunnecessarycost

anddelay(e.g.becauseoftheneedtotranslatedocumentsintothelanguageofthecourtandtheneedto

presentevidenceandargumentstothejudge).25BernardoM.Cremades,IsExclusionofConcurrentCourtsJurisdictionoverConservatoryMeasuresto

beIntroducedThroughaRevisionoftheConvention, J.ofIntlArb.;Dr.FrancisGurry,TheNeedfor

Speed,WIPOArbitrationAndMediationCenterBiennialIFCAIConferenceOctober24,1997,Geneva,Switzerland;DavidE.Wagoner,InterimReliefinInternationalArbitration:Enforcementisasubstantialproblem,51-OCTDisp.Resol.J.68,72(1996)26SettlementofCommercialDisputes,ReportofSecretaryGeneral, Supranote24at24(Para103);See

alsoUNCITRALMODELLAWONINTERNATIONALCOMMERCIALARBITRATIONArticle17.Powerofarbitraltribunaltoorderinterimmeasures:Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmay,

attherequestofaparty,orderanypartytotakesuchinterimmeasureofprotectionasthearbitraltribunal

mayconsidernecessaryinrespectofthesubject-matterofthedispute.Thearbitraltribunalmayrequireany

partytoprovideappropriatesecurityinconnectionwithsuchmeasure,availableatwww.uncitral.org


14/80

6

Thepushtowardsinterimmeasureshasnotbeenwithoutcriticism.Themajorargument

againstinterimreliefisthatbeingacontractualrelationship,thereisnoneedforinterimrelief.

Also,thecriticspointoutthatmorethan80%ofawardsareexecutedwithoutanyproblemand

theprovisionalmeasureswillonlyserverasatooltodelaytheprocedure.Anothermajorconcern

formanyisthetribunalslackofpowertoenforceitsinterimorders.

2.Developmentsinthefieldofinterimmeasuresininternational

arbitration

Availabilityofinterimmeasureslargelydependsoninternationalconventions,national

legislationsandinstitutionalrules.Though,interimmeasuresarebeingusedfrequentlyinthe

recenttimesinarbitration,noneoftheconventionshaveprovisionstoregulateitshandling 27.But

themanynationshaveamendedtheirlegislationstoprovideforinterimmeasures.Manynations

likeSwiss,Germany,Argentina,haveeitheramendedthespecificprovisionsorhaverepealedthe

oldlawandenactednewlegislations.Incommonlawcountries,includingUnitedStates,United

KingdomandIndia,courtshavedealtwiththisissueandhavesetprecedentsonewayortheother

onthissubject.Likewisethethirdsetofproceduresthathaveadirectbearingonthisissueisthe

institutionalrules.Mostoftheinstitutionalrulesintheircurrentform,addressthesubjectof

interimmeasures.ChapterIIofthisarticlediscussesthehandlingofinterimmeasuresby

Nationalcourtsandlegislations.ChapterIIIdealswiththeprovisionsavailableininternational

conventionsandinstitutionalrules.

SpecificmentionhastobemadeoftheUNCITRALmodellaw.Article17oftheModel

Lawprovidestheauthorityforthetribunalstograntinterimrelief.Butitdoesnothavea

provision,whichprovidestheexactprocedurefortherecognitionandenforcementoftheinterim

awards.Therehasbeenalotofconfusiononwhetherthedefinitionofawardinthemodellaw

includestheinterimawardsandtheprocedureprescribedfortheenforcementofawardsmaybe

usedforinterimawardsalso.UNCITRALrecognizedthissituationandisdiscussingthe

27BORNSupranote3at756,757


15/80

7

possibilityofaharmonizedlawfortheenforcementofInterimawards.Aworkinggrouphasbeen

setuptospecificallyaddressthisissue.InChapterIV,IhavediscussedthepresentformofModel

Lawandproposalsoftheworkinggroup.Inconclusion,Ihavetriedtopointoutthebestwayof

handlingallthethreeissuesconcerninginterimmeasures.


16/80

8

CHAPTERII

INTERIMMEASURESININTERNATIONALARBITRATIONCOMPARATIVE

STUDYOFTHENATIONALLEGISLATIONSANDCOURTRULINGS

InternationalArbitrationdependsonawidevarietyoflegalsetupforitsfunctioningviz.,

nationallegislations,internationalconventionsandinstitutionalrules.Asitreliesonsuchavaried

structure,thereisalwaysdifferenceinthewayarbitrationprocessishandled.International

conventionsforthemostpartaresilentontheissueofinterimmeasures.Butnationallegislations

andinstitutionalruleshavedifferinginterpretations.Theprimaryissuesarethepowerofthe

courtstosupport(somepreferinterferein)arbitration,powerofarbitratorstoprovideinterim

reliefandtheenforcementoftheorders.Enforcementofinterimordershavesomeinteresting

areaslikeordersinvolvingthirdpartiesandordersbyforeigncourts.

A.PowerofCourtstoOrderProvisionalRelief

Itishasincreasinglybeenacceptedthatthesupportofnationalcourtsinhighlyimportant

forthesuccessofarbitration.Butthequestionsthatneedtobeansweredarewhenandhowmuch

shouldthecourtsstepin28.UsuallytheCourtsarecalleduponeitheratthestartoftheprocessto

enforcearbitralagreementorattheendtoenforceawards.Buttherearecircumstanceswherethe

Courtsarerequiredtousetheirauthoritytosupporttheprocess29.Mostlythesecircumstances

arisewhenthereisaninvolvementofthirdparty 30.Anotherusualtimingofcourtinterventionfor

28PrathibaM.Singh&DevashishKrishnan,TheIndian1996ArbitrationAct-SolutionsforaCurrent

Dilemma,JournalofInternationalArbitration(insertfootnotefromlib.)29REDFERNSupranote1at233

30REDFERNSupranote1at234;SeeBORNSupranote3at771


17/80

9

interimreliefisatthestartoftheproceedingswhenthetribunalhasnotbeenformed31.Thetime

takentoinitiatetheprocess,appointthearbitratorsandsettlejurisdictionalissues,ifany,willtake

aconsiderabletime.32Sointhemeantimepartieshavetoapproachthecourtstomaintainstatus

quo,protecttheproperty,evidence,etc33.Thecourtsinextraordinarycircumstanceshavebeen

knowntointerfereevenwhentheproceedingsareinprogress,ifapartyshowsproofofpartiality

orcorruptiononthepartofarbitrators.Infact,someviewthispowerofthecourtstobeso

importantthattheythinkwithoutsuchbackingfromthecourtsmanywillnotchoosearbitration 34.

Thenationalpositiondependsonthelegislationsandcourtrulings.Mostofthecountries

havelegislationsdealingwitharbitration.IntheUnitedStates,FederalArbitrationAct(FAA)

governstheconductofarbitration.ButthereisnoprovisioninFAAeitherallowingorprohibiting

provisionalmeasures.Sothecourtrulingsaretheonlyguidelinesavailabletostudythe

availabilityofcourtorderedinterimmeasures.ButinUK,theArbitrationActof1996hasa

specificprovisiongoverningthecourtpowersexercisableinsupportofarbitration 35.The

31CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupman,Court-OrderedProvisionalMeasuresUnderTheNewYork

Convention,,80Am.J.Int'lL.24,25(1986)32SeeUNCITRALARBITRATIONRULES(1982)Article6&7;SeeRULESOFPROCEDUREFOR

ARBITRATIONPROCEEDINGSUNDERINTERNATIONALCENTERFORSETTLEMENTOFINVESTMENTDISPUTESRules1433CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31

34CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8at972

35ArbitrationAct,1996c.2344-(1)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thecourthasforthepurposesofandinrelationtoarbitralproceedingsthesamepowerofmakingordersaboutthematterslisted

belowasithasforthepurposesofandinrelationtolegalproceedings.(2)Thosemattersare-

(a)thetakingoftheevidenceofwitnesses;(b)thepreservationofevidence;(c)makingordersrelatingto

propertywhichisthesubjectoftheproceedingsorastowhichanyquestionarisesintheproceedings-(i)

fortheinspection,photographing,preservation,custodyordetentionoftheproperty,or(ii)orderingthatsamplesbetakenfrom,oranyobservationbemadeoforexperimentconductedupon,theproperty;andfor

thatpurposeauthorisinganypersontoenteranypremisesinthepossessionorcontrolofapartytothe

arbitration;(d)thesaleofanygoodsthesubjectoftheproceedings;(e)thegrantingofaninteriminjunctionortheappointmentofareceiver(3)Ifthecaseisoneofurgency,thecourtmay,ontheapplicationofa

partyorproposedpartytothearbitralproceedings,makesuchordersasitthinksnecessaryforthepurpose

ofpreservingevidenceorassets(4)Ifthecaseisnotoneofurgency,thecourtshallactonlyonthe

applicationofapartytothearbitralproceedings(uponnoticetotheotherpartiesandtothetribunal)madewiththepermissionofthetribunalortheagreementinwritingoftheotherparties.(5)Inanycasethe

courtshallactonlyifortotheextentthatthearbitraltribunal,andanyarbitralorotherinstitutionorperson

vestedbythepartieswithpowerinthatregard,hasnopowerorisunableforthetimebeingtoact

effectively.(6)Ifthecourtsoorders,anordermadebyitunderthissectionshallceasetohaveeffectin

wholeorinpartontheorderofthetribunalorofanysucharbitralorotherinstitutionorpersonhaving


18/80

10

provisionliststhematterswheretheCourtscanexercisepowers.Thewordingsoftheprovisions

suggestthatthelistisexhaustive.Thecourtscanactonlytotheextentthatthetribunalhasno

powerorisunabletoactandalsothecourtorderwillceasetohaveeffectassoonasthetribunal

actsonsuchmatter.Themostnotablefeatureofthissectionistheopting-outoptionforthe

partiesdraftingthearbitrationagreement.ButreadingfromtheArbitrationActaswhole

includingSecs.38&39,whenthepartiesopt-outofSec.44,theywillnothaveaccesstothe

traditionalmarevainjunctions.Becausewhentheyrestricttheauthoritytograntinterim

measurestothearbitrators,therangeofthepowerswillbeconfinedtothislistedin38&39 36.

Priortothe1996Act,thelawonarbitrationinIndiawasgovernedbythreedifference

legislationsviz.theArbitrationAct,1940,theArbitration(ProtocolandConvention)Act,1937

andtheForeignAwards(RecognitionandEnforcement)Act,196137.ThepresentIndian

ArbitrationAct,1996modeledontheUNCITRALModelLaw,hasprovisionforcourt

interventionincommercialarbitrationforpurposesofinterimmeasures 38.Thereisalsoaspecific

provisionregardingcourtsupportforthetribunalintakingevidence39.Section9providesalist

powertoactinrelationtothesubject-matteroftheorder.(7)Theleaveofthecourtisrequiredforany

appealfromadecisionofthecourtunderthissection.36SchaferSupranote4

37AIR1999SupremeCourt565at567,568

38ArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996-Interimmeasuresbycourt9Apartymay,beforeorduring

arbitralproceedingsoratanytimeafterthemakingofthearbitralawardbutbeforeitisenforcedin

accordancewithsection36,applytoaCourt(i)fortheappointmentofaguardianforaminororapersonofunsoundmindforthepurposesofarbitralproceedings;or(ii)foraninterimmeasureofprotectionin

respectofanyofthefollowingmatters,namely:-(a)thepreservation,interimcustodyorsaleofanygoods

whicharethesubject-matterofthearbitrationagreement;(b)securingtheamountindisputeinthe

arbitration;(c)thedetention,preservationorinspectionofanypropertyorthingwhichisthesubject-matter

ofthedisputeinarbitration,orastowhichanyquestionmayarisethereinandauthorisingforanyoftheaforesaidpurposesanypersontoenteruponanylandorbuildinginthepossessionofanyparty,or

authorisinganysamplestobetakenoranyobservationtobemade,orexperimenttobetried,whichmaybe

necessaryorexpedientforthepurposeofobtainingfullinformationorevidence;(d)interiminjunctionortheappointmentofareceiver;(e)suchotherinterimmeasureofprotectionasmayappeartotheCourttobe

justandconvenient,andtheCourtshallhavethesamepowerformakingordersasithasforthepurposeof,

andinrelationto,anyproceedingsbeforeit.39ArbitrationandConciliationAct,199627(1)Thearbitraltribunal,orapartywiththeapprovalofthearbitraltribunal,mayapplytothecourtforassistanceintakingevidence(2)Theapplicationshallspecify-

(a)thenamesandaddressesofthepartiesandthearbitrators;(b)thegeneralnatureoftheclaimandthe

reliefsought;(c)theevidencetobeobtained,inparticular,-(i)thenameandaddressofanypersontobe

heardaswitnessorexpertwitnessandastatementofthesubject-matterofthetestimonyrequired;(ii)the

descriptionofanydocumenttobeproducedorpropertytobeinspected.(3)Thecourtmay,withinits


19/80

11

ofissuesonwhichtheCourtcanprovideinterimrelief.Section9(e)reservestotheCourtthe

authoritytograntsuchotherinterimreliefthatmayappeartobejustandconvenient.Thewhole

setupoftheSection9lookslikeacatchallclausegivingtheCourtswideandsweepingpowersto

grantinterimrelief40.

InFrance,thelegislativepositionissimilartoUSinthattheNewCodeofCivil

Proceduredoesnotmentionabouttheprovisionalmeasuresavailablefromthecourts.But,in

practicethepartiescanapplytotheFrenchCourtsforinterimmeasures41.Article809oftheNew

CivilProcedureCode42dealswiththeprotectivemeasuresavailablefromtheCourtsinordinary

circumstances.Thisprovisioncanalsobeusedwhenarbitrationispendingtoobtaininterim

relief.TheGermancivilProcedureCode(GCP)Sec.1033statesthatitisnotincompatiblewith

thearbitrationagreementforthecourtstoorderinterimmeasuresinmattersinvolvingthe

dispute43.ThisprovisionisverysimilartotheonefoundintheIndianArbitrationAct.Butthe

provisionismorelikeadeclarationratherthanaprovisionauthorizingthecourts.Thenatureand

extentofthejurisdictionavailabletothecourtsarereadfromtheGCPprovision914-945,which

competenceandaccordingtoitsrulesontakingevidence,executetherequestbyorderingthattheevidence

beprovideddirectlytothearbitraltribunal.(4)Thecourtmay,whilemakinganorderundersub-section(3)issuethesameprocessestowitnessesasitmayissueinsuitstriedbeforeit.(5)Personsfailingtoattendin

accordancewithsuchprocesses,ormakinganyotherdefault,orrefusingtogivetheirevidence,orguiltyof

anycontempttothearbitraltribunalduringtheconductofarbitralproceedings,shallbesubjecttothelike

disadvantages,penaltiesandpunishmentsbyorderofthecourtontherepresentationofthearbitraltribunalastheywouldincurforthelikeoffencesinsuitstriedbeforethecourt.(6)Inthissectiontheexpression

"processes"includessummonsesandcommissionsfortheexaminationofwitnessesandsummonsesto

producedocuments, availableathttp://www.laws4india.com40V.Giri,InterimMeasuresAvailableinArbitrationandConciliationAct,1996,ICAArbitration

Quarterly,Vol.XXXXX,No.3,Oct-Dec2001,availableathttp://www.ficci.com/icanet/ICA-Oct/OCT6.htm41RichardH.Kreindler,CourtInterventioninCommercialandConstructionArbitration,13-OCT

ConstructionLaw.12,1642N.C.P.C.Art.809-Thepresidentmay,atanytime,evenwhereconfrontedwithseriousobjections,

providebywayofsummaryinterlocutoryproceedingsforsuchprotectivemeasuresorsuchmeasuresasto

keepthestatusquoofthemattersasrequired,eithertoprotectfromanimpendingdamage,ortoabatea

nuisancemanifestlyillegal.Whereliabilityresultantfromanobligationcannotbeseriouslychallenged,hemayawardaninterimpaymenttothecreditorororderthemandatoryperformanceoftheobligationeven

whereitshallbeinthenatureofanobligationtoperform,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org431033BookTenZPO-Arbitrationagreementandinterimmeasuresbycourt: Itisnotincompatiblewith

anarbitrationagreementforacourttogrant,beforeorduringarbitralproceedings,aninterimmeasureof

protectionrelatingtothesubject-matterofthearbitrationuponrequestofaparty.


20/80

12

dealingeneralwithinterimmeasuresofprotection44.GCPalsoprovidesforCourtassistancein

thematteroftakingevidence45.ThisisconsistentwiththetraditionalGermanviewthatinterim

reliefcanbegrantedonlybythecourts.GermanLawdoesnotevenrequiretheplaceofthemain

proceedingtobeinGermany.Evenifarbitrationhasnotstartedatthetimeoffilingforthe

interimrelief,ifthepartiesconvincethecourtthatthefinalawardisenforceableinGermanyand

thereisanimmediateneedforrelief,itwouldbegranted46.TheGermanCourtscanusetwotypes

ofinterimmeasuresprovidedforbyGCP914945.OneisthefunctionalequivalentofMareva

InjunctioninUK.Thisisusedtopreventthedissipationofproperty.Theotherremedycoversthe

restofthereliefincludingconservationofevidence,etc.IfthepreconditionintheCodeis

satisfiedtheCourtsareobligedtogranttherequiredremedy 47.

Switzerlandisinanotherextremeposition48,wheremostofthepowerstograntinterim

reliefarevestedwiththearbitrationtribunal49.Further,thelocalcourtscanassistintaking

evidence,assistinestablishingthetribunalandruleonthechallengeofthearbitrators.Thecourts

44Schaefersupranote4451050BookTenZPO-CourtAssistanceinTakingEvidenceandOtherJudicialActs:Thearbitral

tribunalorapartywiththeapprovalofthearbitraltribunalmayrequestfromacourtassistanceintaking

evidenceorperformanceofotherjudicialactswhichthearbitraltribunalisnotempoweredtocarryout.

Unlessitregardstheapplicationasinadmissible,thecourtshallexecutetherequestaccordingtoitsrules

ontakingevidenceorotherjudicialacts.Thearbitratorsareentitledtoparticipateinanyjudicialtakingofevidenceandtoaskquestions.46EricSchwartz&JurgenMark,ProvisionalMeasuresinInternationalArbitration-PartII:Perspectives

FromTheICCandGermany,6WorldArb.&MediationRep.52,5647SchaeferSupranote4

48WerbickiSupranote20at67

49CharlesPoncet&EmmanuelGaillard,IntroductoryNoteonSwissStatueonInternationalArbitration

III(B)(TheIntroductoryNoteandtranslationwerepreparedforInternationalLegalMaterialsbyCharles

Poncet,I.L.M.CorrespondingEditorfor-Switzerland,LawOfficesofCharlesPoncet,Geneva,andEmmanuelGaillard,I.L.M.CorrespondingEditorforFrance,ProfessorofLaw,UniversityofParisXII,

EuropeanCounsel,Shearman&Sterling,Paris)Swisscourtsmaygrantprovisionalmeasuresbuttheir

jurisdictionisclearlysubordinatetothatofthearbitraltribunal.IncontrasttotheConcordat,thefederalstatuteprovidesthatprovisionalremedies,includingthefreezingofassets,shouldbereferredtothearbitral

tribunalitself.Itisonlyintheeventthat,apartyrefusestocomplywiththearbitraltribunal'sorderthatthe

arbitraltribunalmayaskacourtwithproperjurisdictiontointervene(article183).

Article183SwissStatuteonInternationalLaw-1.Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmayissueprovisionalorconservatoryordersifrequestedbyoneoftheparties.2.Iftheopposing

partydoesnotvoluntarilycomplywiththeorderissuedbythearbitraltribunal,thelattermayseekthe

assistanceofthecourt,whichshallapplyitsownlaw.3.Thearbitraltribunalorthecourtmaygrant

provisionalorconservatorymeasuressubjecttothereceiptofadequatesecurityfromtherequestingparty,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org


21/80

13

candoalltheseonlyifthepartiesorthetribunalrequestsittodosoandthesepowershavenot

specificallybeentakenawaybythearbitrationagreement 50.TheNetherlandsArbitrationAct

Article102251providesforcourtorderedinterimmeasuresofprotection.Itauthorizestheparties

toapproachthedistrictcourtofnecessaryorders.Itspecificallystatesthatsuchanapproachto

thecourtsisnotcontrarytothearbitrationagreement 52.Furtheritprovidesforinterimmeasures

fromtheCourtsevenincaseswheretheseatofarbitrationinoutsideNetherlands53.

Havingseenthelegislations,itisinterestingtostudythecourtinterpretationsofthese

legislations.UnitedStatesCourtssofarhavenotcomeupwithauniformposition.Therearelots

ofopposingviewsthatitbordersonconfusion.Startingfromthedifferenceinhandlingbetween,

domesticandinternationalarbitration,thecircuitcourtshavegivendifferingdecisions.InUS,the

courtshavedrawnadistinctionbetweencasesarisingunderChapterIofFederalArbitrationAct

(FAA),i.e.domesticarbitrationandtheinternationalarbitrationcasesdealtwithunderChapterII

ofFAA.Sec.3inChapterIofFAAempowerstheCourtstostaytheproceedingsuntil

arbitrationiscomplete.WhiledealingwithcasesarisingoutofthisSection,majorityofthe

Courtsinterpretedthisasgivingjurisdictionforthemtointerfere.Priortotheincorporationofthe

NewYorkConventionintoFAA,thesecondcircuitcourtwasoneofthefirsttoaddressthis

50IdatIII(A)

51Article1022ARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDSUBSTANTIVECLAIMBEFORECOURT;

ARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDINTERIMMEASURESBYCOURT 1.Acourtseizedofadisputeinrespectofwhichanarbitrationagreementhasbeenconcludedshalldeclarethatithasnojurisdictionifa

partyinvokestheexistenceofthesaidagreementbeforesubmittingadefense,unlesstheagreementis

invalid.2.Anarbitrationagreementshallnotprecludeapartyfromrequestingacourttograntinterim

measuresofprotection,orfromapplyingtothePresidentoftheDistrictCourtforadecisioninsummary

proceedingsinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle289.InthelattercasethePresidentshalldecidethecaseinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofarticle1051,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org52Id

53Article1074FOREIGNARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDSUBSTANTIVECLAIMBEFOREDUTCHCOURT;FOREIGNARBITRATIONAGREEMENTANDINTERIMMEASURESBYDUTCH

COURT1.AcourtintheNetherlandsseizedofadisputeinrespectofwhichanarbitrationagreementhas

beenconcludedunderwhicharbitrationshalltakeplaceoutsidetheNetherlandsshalldeclarethatithasno

jurisdictionifapartyinvokestheexistenceofthesaidagreementbeforesubmittingadefence,unlesstheagreementisinvalidunderthelawapplicablethereto.2.Theagreementmentionedinparagraph(1)shall

notprecludeapartyfromrequestingacourtintheNetherlandstograntinterimmeasuresofprotection,or

fromapplyingtothePresidentoftheDistrictCourtforadecisioninsummaryproceedingsinaccordance

withtheprovisionsofarticle289,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org


22/80

14

issueininternationalarbitration.InMurrayOilcase54,JudgeLearnedHandupheldanattachment

grantedbythelowercourtwhilestayingthecourtproceedingsinsupportofarbitration 55.Many

circuitcourtsincludingFirst,Third,Fourth,SeventhandNinthCircuitshaveheldasimilar

positiontotheMurrayCase56.ButaftertheNewYorkConventionwasincorporatedintothe

ChapterIIofFAA,theCourtsinterpretedthatactdifferentlyfromtheChapterI.Secs.3,4and8

oftheFAA,whichprovideforCourtinterferenceinarbitration.

Threeseminalcases,whichconsideredtheavailabilityofinterimmeasuresunderChapter

II,areMcCrearyTire&RubberC.vCEATS.p.A57,Cooperv.AteliersdelaMotobecane 58and

CarolinaPower&LightCo.v.Uranex59.ThirdcircuitinMcCrearybecamethefirstappellate

courttoconsiderthisissue 60.Itgrantedstayinsupportofanarbitrationclausebutliquidatedan

attachmentgrantedbythestatecourt.Thecourtreasonedthatthewordsreferthepartiesto

arbitrationcontainedintheNewYorkConventiontakesawayitsjurisdictiontograntinterim

measures.ItdifferentiatedbetweenSec.3ofFAAandChapterIIproceedingsbystatingthatthe

courtsretainsufficientpowerstograntinterimmeasuresunderSec.3,asitonlyrequiresastayof

theproceedings,whereasChapterIIproceedingsrequirethecourttorefertheparties 61.Italso

reasonedthatthepurposeoftheconventionwouldbedefeatedifpartiesareexposedtothe

54MurrayOilProdsCo.v.MitsuiCo.,146F.2d381(C.C.A.2NY.1944)

55Id.at384.JudgeLearnedHand:anarbitrationclausedoesnotdepriveapromiseeoftheusual

provisionalremedies,evenwhenheagreesthatthedisputeisarbitrable.56OrthoPharmaceuticalsCorp.v.Amgen,Inc.,882F.2d806,812(3dCir.1989);PMSDistrib.Co.,Inc.v.

Huber&Shuner,A.G.,863F.2d639,642(9thCir.1988);Teradynev.MostekCorp.,797F.2d43,51(1stCir.1986);MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.v.Bradley,756F.2d1048,1052(4thCir.1985);

CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8at977,97857McCrearyTire&RubberCo.v.CeatS.p.A.,501F.2d1032(3dCir.1974)

58Cooperv.AteliersdelaMotobecane,S.A.,442N.E.2d1239(N.Y.1982)

59CarolinaPower&LightCo.v.Uranex,451F.Supp.1044(N.D.Cal.1977)

60CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8at980;CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31

at2861McCrearyOilProds,501F.2dat1038Unlike3ofthefederalAct,articleII(3)oftheConvention

providesthatthecourtofacontractingstateshall'referthepartiestoarbitration'ratherthan'staythetrialof

theaction.'TheConventionforbidsthecourtsofacontractingstatefromentertainingasuit,whichviolates

anagreementtoarbitrate.Thusthecontentionthatarbitrationismerelyanothermethodoftrial,towhich

stateprovisionalremediesshouldequallyapply,isunavailable.


23/80

15

uncertaintiesofthestatelawingrantingattachments62.Further,itstatedthatattachmentwouldbe

anattempttobypasstheagreedmethodofdisputeresolution 63.NewYorkCourtofappeals

followedthisdecisioninCooper.Thecourtofappealsgaveanewreasoningbyinterpretingthat

sincetheNewYorkconventionspecificallyallowsforattachmentsinenforcementofawardsand

omitstotalkaboutthatinregardtointerimmeasures,theframersmusthaveintendedthatkindof

interventiononlyafterthefinaldecisionbythearbitrators64.

ThefirstfederalcourttorejecttheargumentsofthethirdcircuitwastheDistrictCourt

fortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia.InCarolinaPowers,theDistrictCourtitrefusedtofollow

McCrearyandgaveitsowninterpretationoftheConvention65.Followingthesedecisionsvarious

62IdTheobviouspurposeoftheenactmentofPub.L.91-368,permittingremovalofallcasesfalling

withinthetermsofthetreaty,wastopreventthevagariesofstatelawfromimpedingitsfull

implementation.Permittingacontinuedresorttoforeignattachmentinbreachoftheagreementisinconsistentwiththatpurpose.63IdThiscomplaintdoesnotseektoenforceanarbitrationawardbyforeignattachment.Itseeksto

bypasstheagreeduponmethodofsettlingdisputes.SuchabypassisprohibitedbytheConventionifone

partytotheagreementobjects64CharlesH.BrowerIISupranote8;Cooper,442N.E.2d.at1242.TheUNConventionapparently

consideredtheproblemandsawnoneedtoprovideforprearbitrationsecurity.Thecourtalsogavesome

policyguidanceforitsdecisionseeCharlesH.BrowerIISupranote865Uranex,451F.Supp.at1051Thiscourt,however,doesnotfindthereasoningofMcCrearyconvincing.

Asmentionedabove,nothinginthetextoftheConventionitselfsuggeststhatitprecludesprejudgment

attachment.TheUnitedStatesArbitrationAct,9U.S.C.ss1etseq.(1970),whichoperatesmuchlikethe

Conventionfordomesticagreementsinvolvingmaritimeorinterstatecommerce,doesnotprohibitmaintenanceofaprejudgmentattachmentduringastaypendingarbitrationFirst,thecourtnotesthatthe

ArbitrationActonlydirectscourtsto"staythetrialoftheaction,"whiletheConventionrequiresacourtto

"referthepartiestoarbitration."501F.2dat1038.FromthisdifferencetheMcCrearycourtapparently

concludesthatwhiletheArbitrationActmightpermitcontinuedjurisdictionandevenmaintenanceofaprejudgmentattachmentpendingarbitration,applicationoftheConventioncompletelyouststhecourtof

jurisdiction.Theuseofthegeneralterm"refer,"however,mightreflectlittlemorethanthefactthatthe

Conventionmustbeappliedinmanyverydifferentlegalsystems,andpossiblyincircumstanceswherethe

useofthetechnicalterm"stay"wouldnotbeameaningfuldirective.Furthermore,section4oftheUnited

StatesArbitrationActgrantsdistrictcourtsthepowertoactuallyorderthepartiestoarbitration,butthisprovisionhasnotbeeninterpretedtodeprivethecourtsofcontinuingjurisdictionovertheaction.

Second,theMcCrearycourtfoundsupportforitspositioninthefactthattheimplementingstatutesofthe

Conventionprovideforremovaljurisdictioninthefederalcourts.See9U.S.C.s205(1970).TheThirdCircuitconcludedthat"(t)heobviouspurpose(ofprovidingforremovaljurisdiction)...wastopreventthe

vagariesofstatelawfromimpedingits(theConvention's)fullimplementation.Permittingacontinued

resorttoforeignattachment... isinconsistentwiththatpurpose."Itmustbenoted,however,thatanycase

fallingwithinsection4oftheUnitedStatesArbitrationActalsowouldbesubjecttoremovalpursuantto28U.S.C.s1441.Furthermore,removaltofederalcourtcouldhavelittleimpactonthe"vagaries"ofstate

provisionalremedies,forpursuanttoRule64oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedurethedistrictcourts

employtheproceduresandremediesofthestateswheretheysit.Finally,itshouldbenotedthatinother

contextstheSupremeCourthasconcludedthattheavailabilityofprovisionalremediesencouragesrather

thanobstructstheuseofagreementstoarbitrate.SeeBoysMarket,Inc.v.RetailClerksUnion,398U.S.


24/80

16

courtshaveelectedtofollowthetwovaryingviews.Somecircuitshavegivenconflicting

opinionsoverthepasttwodecades.TheFirst,Third,FourthandEighthcircuitshavefollowedthe

McCrearyviewsalbeitsomedeviations.FourthCircuit,inI.T.A.D.Assoc.v.Podar66Bros

supportedtheMcCrearydecision.WhentheUSbuyerinthatcasebroughtasuitinSouth

Carolinaforbreachofcontractandsoughtattachment,theFourthcircuitonappealliquidatedthe

attachmentcitingMcCrearytosupportitsconclusion67.ThereaftertheFirstCircuitcitedboth

McCrearyandI.T.A.DAssoc.tosupportitsdecisioninLedeev.CeramicheRagno68.TheFifth

CircuitinE.A.S.T,Inc.ofStamford,Conn.V.M/VALAIA69andaTennesseeDistrictCourtin

SixthCircuitinTennesseeImports,Inc.v.Filippi70havemoreorlessgonewiththeCarolina

Powerslineofthinking.TheSeventhcircuitinamorerecentdecisionhasalsorecognizedthe

powerofcourtstograntinterimreliefpendingarbitration.Thiscourthoweverreversedthe

decisionofthedistrictcourtextendingtheinterimreliefaftertheconstitutionofthetribunal71.

SecondCircuitthattraditionallywentalongwiththeMcCrearyprecedenthoweverreversedits

235,90S.Ct.1583,26L.Ed.2d199(1970).InsumthiscourtwillnotfollowthereasoningofMcCreary

Tire&RubberCompanyv.CEAT,S.p.A.,supra.Thereisnoindicationineitherthetextortheapparent

policiesoftheConventionthatresorttoprejudgmentattachmentwastobeprecluded.66I.T.A.D.Assoc.v.PodarBros.,636F.2d75(4

thCir.1981)

67Idat76theattachmentobtainedbyI.T.A.D.andthesupersedingbondpostedbyPodararecontraryto

theparties'agreementtoarbitrateandtheConvention;therefore,thebondmustbereleasedandrefundedtoPodar.CitingMcCrearyTire&RubberCo.68Ledeev.CeramicheRagno,684F.2d184,187(1stCir.1982)

69E.A.S.T.,Inc.ofStamford,Conn.v.M/VALAIA,876F.2d1168(5

thCir.1989)

70TennesseeImports,Inc.,v.Filippi,745F.Supp.1314(M.D.Tenn.1990)

71MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.v.Salvano999F.2d211,214,215,7thCir.1993,We

agreewithMerrillLynch,however,thattheweightoffederalappellateauthorityrecognizessomeequitablepoweronthepartofthedistrictcourttoissuepreliminaryinjunctivereliefindisputesthatareultimatelyto

beresolvedbyanarbitrationpanel.Thecaselawdoesnotclearlyresolve,however,theextenttowhich

thedistrictcourt'sauthoritytograntinjunctivereliefextendedbeyondtheinitialNovember4TRO.AlthoughwedeclinetofollowtheapproachoftheEighthCircuit,whichfoundadistrictcourt'sgrantofanyinjunctivereliefinanarbitrabledisputetobeanabuseofdiscretion,seeHovey,726F.2dat1291-92,

wedonotgosofarastodeterminethatthatauthorityextendsadinfinitum.Areasonablelimitationisset

forthinMerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.v.Patinkin,1991WL83163at*4,6,1991U.S.Dist.LEXIS6210at*13,20(N.D.Ill.May3,1991),adistrictcourtcasewithfactssimilartothecasebeforeus.

Althoughthecourtgrantedtheplaintiff'srequesttoextendaTROthathadbeenimposedearlier,it

explicitlydidsoonly"untilthearbitrationpanelisabletoaddresswhethertheTROshouldremainin

effect."Id.at*6,1991U.S.Dist.LEXIS6210at*20.Onceassembled,anarbitrationpanelcanenter

whatevertemporaryinjunctivereliefitdeemsnecessarytomaintainthestatusquo.


25/80

17

decisioninBorden,Inc.v.MeijiMilkProdsCo.72toagrantpreliminaryinjunctioninaidof

arbitration.LaterinDavidL.Threlkel&Co.v.MetallgesellschaftLtd.73,itrefusedtobedrawn

intothecontroversyuntilthepositionisfurtherdeveloped.

WhereasintheUnitedKingdom,thecourtshavegenerallypreferredtoacknowledge

theirpowertoorderinterimmeasurespendingarbitration.PreviouslywhentheEnglish

ArbitrationActof1950wasinforce,thecourtsgrantedinteriminjunctionsbasedontheNippon

YusenKaishav.KarageorgisandMarevaCompaniaNaviera,S.Av.InternationalBulkcarriers.

But,RenaKwasoneofthefirstcasesinwhichtheEnglishcourtaddressedtheavailabilityof

interimmeasuresinarbitration74.InRenaK

75,thecourtdecidedthatwhilestayingthelitigation

infavorofarbitration,ithadpowerstoattachtheassetsoftheparty.Thispositionwasin

conformitywiththeArbitrationActof1975,whichincorporatedArticleII(3)oftheNewYork

Convention76.

TheCourtpositioninEnglandregardingtheinterimorprovisionalmeasurescanbe

clearlystudiedinthecasesconcerningsecurityforcosts.Till1994,theEnglishcourtsruledthat

theauthoritytoordersecurityrestssolelywithcourtsifthepartieshadnotpreviouslyagreed

otherwise77.Kerr.J.gavethetwoleadingjudgmentsinMavani

78andBankMellatv.Helliniki

TechnikiS.A79.InMavani,hecitedtheSec.12oftheArbitrationActof1950tosupporthis

position.LaterinBankMellatcaseheforwardedatwo-prongtesttoordersecurityforcostsin

casesconcerninginternationalarbitrationviz.theconnectionbetweendisputeandtheEnglish

72Borden,Inc.v.MeijiMilkProdsCo.,919F.2d822(2dCir.1990)

73DavidL.Threkeld&Co.v.MetallgesellschaftLtd.,923F.2d245(2dCir.1991)74CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at36

75RenaK,1LloydsL.R.545[1978]

76Id.

77ArbitrationAct1950,12(6),"TheHighCourtshallhave...thesamepowerofmakingordersinrespect

of...SecurityforCosts[inarbitrationcases]...asithasforthepurposeof...anactionormatterintheHigh

Court:Providedthatnothinginthissubsectionshallbetakentoprejudiceanypowerwhichmaybevested

inanarbitrator[bytheparties]ofmakingorders....",availableathttp://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/ddcaron/Documents/RPID%20Documents/rp04045.html;Noah

Rubins,InGodWeTrust,AllOthersPayCash:SecurityForCostsInInternationalCommercial

Arbitration,11Am.Rev.Int'lArb.307,323(2000)78[1973]1AllE.R.555

79[1984]Q.B.291


26/80

18

legalsystemandtheneedforsecurity80.ButlaterinKen-Rencase

81,thiswastakenastepfurther

bytheEnglishCourt.ThatcaseinvolvedadisputebetweenKenyanGovernmentownedcompany

andaBelgiumandAustriancompanytoberesolvedunderICCrules82.Nevertheless,theEnglish

Courtruledthatitcouldordersecurityforcosts83.Butaftertheenactmentofthe1996Act,now

thesecurityforcostshasbeenentirelyshiftedtothearbitratorsrealm 84.TheChannelTunnel

case85isanotherleadingprecedentinthismatterthoughitwasdecidedpriortotheArbitration

Actof1996.ThisinvolvesadisputebetweenTrans-MancheLink,thecontractor,andthe

Eurotunnel,theowner.Theyhadanarbitrationclauseintheircontract,whichprovidedfor

settlementbyDisputeResolutionBoardwithin90daysandafterthatbyarbitrationundertheICC

rulesinBelgium.WhenthedisputestartedTMLthreatenedtostoptheworkontheproject.

Immediately,EurotunnelapproachedtheEnglishcourtforanorderrestrainingTMLfrom

suspendingthework.Afteraspateofappeals,finallytheHouseofLordsruledonthismatter.

HouseofLordsagreedthattheEnglishCourtshavejurisdictiontograntinterimmeasures

pendingarbitration,butdecidedthatthepresentcasewasnotfittodoso86.ThedecisionbyMr.

JusticeBrendoninRenaK87isaleadingprecedentonthisissue.HegrantedaMarevaInjunction

inthatcaseandpointedoutthatifapartyiseligibletoobtainanorderforsecurityincasesthat

donotinvolvearbitrationclause,thereshouldbenoreasonforthepartytoobtainsuchorder

wherethelitigationisstayedpendingarbitration 88.Citingsomeunreportedcases,hesaidthere

80Id;NoahRubinsSupranote77

81SACoppeLavalinNVv.Ken-RenChemicalsandFertilizers,[1994]2W.L.R.631.

82Id.83Id.

84NoahRubinsSupranote77;SeeArbitrationAct,1996,c.23.38

85ChannelTunnelGroupv.BalfourBeatty[1993]AC334(HL).

86Id.;WerbickiSupranote20

87RenaK[1978]1LloydsL.R.545

88Idat561Mr.JusticeBrendonOnthefootingthattheprocedureisavailabletoprovideaplaintiff,ina

casewherenoquestionofarbitrationarises,withsecurityforanyjudgmentwhichhemayobtaininanaction,Iseenogoodreasoninprinciplewhyitshouldnotalsobeavailabletoprovideaplaintiff,whose

actionisbeingstayedontheapplicationofadefendantinorderthattheclaimmaybedecidedby

arbitrationinaccordancewithanarbitrationagreementbetweenthem,withsecurityforthepaymentofany

awardwhichtheplaintiffmayobtaininthearbitration;seeCharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at36,37


27/80

19

havebeenmanyoccasionswhenthecommercialcourtshavegrantedsuchinjunctions89.There

arenotmanyEnglishcaselawsregardingthisissuebecauseasseenbytheprecedingcasesitis

clearthattheEnglishCourtsdonotconsiderinterimmeasuresasincompatiblewiththe

arbitrationagreementsortheNewYorkConvention90.Thispositionisclearlyincontrasttothe

positionadoptedbysomeoftheUSCourts.

InIndia,theSupremeCourtinR.McDill&Co.(P)Ltdv.GouriShanker91heldthatthe

partiestoarbitrationhaverecoursetoalltheinterimmeasuresavailableundertheCivilProcedure

Codeof1908.LaterinM/s.SundaramFinanceLtd.V.M/s.NEPCIndiaLtd92,theSupreme

Courtconsideredthequestionwhetherapartycanapproachacourtforinjunctionevenbefore

arbitrationprocesshasactuallystartedandansweredintheaffirmative.ThisCourtrejectedthe

reasoningsgivenbythelowerCourtandheldthatinterimmeasuresofprotectioncanbegranted

evenpriortotheinitiationofarbitrationproceedings93.ThecourtreferredtotheArbitrationAct

of1940,theUNCITRALModelLaw,ArbitrationActof1996ofEnglandandtwoEnglishcases

viz.TheChannelTunnelCaseandFranceMancheS.A.v.BalfourBeattyConstructionsLtd.94

TheSupremeCourtinitsdecisionpointsouttherelevantsectionsoftheArbitrationActof1940

thatpermitinterimmeasuresduringarbitration95.TheDelhiHighCourtfollowedthisdecisionin

M/s.BuddhaFilmsPvt.Ltd.V.PrasarBharati96.Eventhoughitfinallyrejectedthepetitionfor

interiminjunctiononthemeritsofthecase,itheldthatapetitionforinterimreliefismaintainable

89CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at37TheRenaKinvolvedamaritimeandnot

acommercialcontract,butitsapplicationisnotlimitedtomaritimecases.[T]heCommercialCourt[also]hasgrantedinjunctionson[thebasisofsection12(6)]inanumberofunreportedcases.90CharlesN.Brower&W.MichealTupmanSupranote31at38

91R.McDill&Co.(P)Ltdv.GouriShanker,(1998)2SCC548.

92M/s.SundaramFinanceltd.,v.M/s.NEPCIndiaLtd.,AIR1999SupremeCourt565

93Id.at571InviewoftheaforesaiddiscussionsitfollowsthattheHighCourterredincomingtothe

conclusionthattheTrialCourthadnojurisdictioninentertainingtheapplicationunderSect.9because

arbitrationproceedingshadnotbeeninitiatedbytheappellant.94Id.at568,569,570

95Idat569ThepositionundertheArbitrationAct,1940wasthatapartycouldcommenceproceedingsin

CourtbymovinganapplicationunderSect.20forappointmentofanarbitratorandsimultaneouslyitcould

moveanapplicationforinterimreliefundertheSecondSchedulereadwithSect.41(b)ofthe1940Act.96AIR2001Delhi241


28/80

20

pendingarbitrationproceedings97.Butsomerecentdecisions,includingthelatestinthatlineby

DelhiHighCourthasraisedconcernsamongthearbitrationpractitionersinIndia 98.Somecourts

whenceasedwiththequestionwhethertheIndianArbitrationandConciliationActempowersit

toorderinterimreliefwhentheplaceofarbitrationisoutsideIndia,heldinthenegative99.As

notedearlier,Sec.9oftheArbitrationandConciliationAct,whichresidesinPartIoftheAct,

empowersthecourtstoorderinterimandconservatorymeasures.Sec.2(2)oftheActlimitsthe

applicationofPartIoftheActandhenceSec.9toarbitrationheldwithinIndia.DelhiHighCourt

inMarriottInternationalInc. 100decidedthatSec.2(2)wouldbecomeredundantifSec.9ofthe

ActisinterpretedtoapplytoarbitrationoutsideIndia101.TheSupremeCourtin2002hasputto

restalltheconfusionsthatarosebecauseoftheinterpretationgivenbytheLowercourts.In

BhatiaInternationalvs.BulkTradingS.A.andAnother102,itinterpretedSec.2(2)asnotlimiting

theapplicationofPartIoftheActtointernationalarbitrationinsideIndia.Itreasonedthatthe

objectiveoftheActwouldbenegatediftheinterpretationoftheDelhiHighCourtwereupheld.It

gavetheoptiontothepartiestodecidewhethertooptoutofPart-IoftheActincaseof

97Id.

98ZiaMody&ShuvaMandal,CaseComment,India,Int.A.L.R.2001,4(3),N19-20;V.GiriSupranote40;EastCoastShippingLimitedVs.M.J.ScrapPvt.Ltd.(CalcuttaHighCourt);CaventerCareLimited

Vs.SeagramCompanylimited(CalcuttaHighCourt);MyriadInternationalCorpnLtd.Vs.AnsonHotels

Limited,AIR2000Delhi377;ContraryviewtakeninOlexFocasPvt.Vs.KodeExportsco.Limted,AIR

2000Delhi161wasreversedinMyriad99Id;JyotiSagar,InterimMeasuresByLocalCourtsinArbitrationHeldOverseasDevelopmentsin

India,NewsandNotesFromTheInstituteforTransnationalArbitration,3Vol.16,No.4(Autumn2002);

Ramasamy,InterimMeasuresofProtectionundertheIndianArbitrationandConciliationAct1996,1999ArbitrationInternational;KitechnologyNVv.UnicorGmbHRahnPlastmaschinen,[1998]DelhiReported

Judgments397;SeagramCo.Ltd.v.KeventerAgroLtdAPONo.498of1997,orderdated27January

1998(unreported).ThesameviewwastakenbyJusticeSharmainDominantOffsetPvt.Ltd.v.

AdamovskeStrojirnya.s.,[1997]DelhiReportedJudgments313....Aconjointreadingofallthe

provisionsclearlyindicatesthatsub-section(2)ofSection2isaninclusivedefinitionandthatitdoesnotexcludetheapplicabilityofPartItothosearbitrations,whicharenotbeingheldinIndia.Theaforesaid

interpretationgetssupportfromtheprovisionsofsub-section(5)ofSection2whichprovidesthatPartI

shallapplytoallarbitrationsandtoallproceedingsrelatingtheretowhichwouldalso,inmyconsideredopinion,includeaninternationalcommercialarbitration...100MarriottInternationalInc.v.AnsalHotelsLtd,AIR2000DEL377

101ZiaMody&ShuvaMandal Supranote98

102BhatiaInternationalvs.BulkTradingS.A.andAnother,2002(4)SCC105


29/80

21

arbitrationheldoutsideIndia103.So,nowifthepartiesdonotspecificallyoptoutofPartIofthe

Act,theCourtsinIndiamayorderinterimorconservatorymeasureprovidedforbySec.9even

whenarbitrationispendingoutsideIndia104.

ThepropensityoftheFrenchCourtstoorderinterimmeasurespendingarbitrationwas

seeninthematterofAtlanticTritonv.RpubliquepopulairervolutionnairedeGuine 105.The

RennesCourtofAppeal,inthematterinvolvingICSIDArbitrationwentalongwiththeposition

takenbytheICSIDguide,interpretingArticle26&47oftheWashingtonConventiontogivethe

tribunalexclusiveauthoritytograntinterimrelief106.ButtheFrenchCourdeCassationreversed

thedecisionoftheRennesCourtbyinterpretingthatArticle26oftheWashingtonConvention

wasnotintendedtoprohibitapplicationstothecourtsforprotectivemeasuresaimedatensuring

theenforcementoftheforthcomingaward.107In1991,theParisCourtofAppealsinacaseruled

thatithastheauthoritytoorderinterimreliefpendingarbitrationonsubstantiveissues108.

AnotherCourtwhichretainedjurisdictionforafterdirectingarbitrationwasRouenCourtof

Appeals109.TheCourtsaidthatithadjurisdictiontoorderprotectivemeasuresregardlessof

whetherornotthearbitraltribunalisconstituted. 110ItisclearthatbutforUnitedStates,mostof

theStateCourtsgrantinterimmeasuresinsupportofarbitration,thoughtheproceduralaspects

differ.

103Id;JyotiSagarSupranote99

104JyotiSagarSupranote99

105Cass.leciv.,Rennes,Nov.18,1986,AtlanticTritonv.RpubliquepopulairervolutionnairedeGuine,

114J.D.I.125(1987);SeealsoFOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMANONINTERNATIONALCOMMERCIAL

ARBITRATION,PartIVCh.IIIPara1309(EmmanuelGaillard&JohnSavageeds.,1999)106AtlanticTriton,14J.D.I.125(1987)Supranote105

107AtlanticTriton,14J.D.I.125(1987)Supranote105;FOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMAN,Supranote105

108FOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMAN,Supranote105;CAParis,Dec.12,1990,Terexv.Banexi,1991

BULL.JOLY595109CARouen,Sept.7,1995,RotemAmfertNegevv.GrandeParoisse,1996REV.ARB.275

110Id;FOUCHARDGAILLARDGOLDMAN,Supranote105


30/80

22

1. Should Court Interference be Limited?

Though,thecourtdecisions,nationallegislationsandcommentatorsfavorthesupportof

interimmeasuresfromthecourts,criticshaveputforwardsomeargumentstorestrictthecourts

authoritytoorderinterimrelief.Onesuchargumentthathassomemerittoitisthatwhen

decidingtheinterimissue,courtsinvariablytreadontothemainissue,whichshouldbedecided

bythearbitrator111.Thecourtsinmostcountrieslooktothepossibilityofsuccessonmeritsasa

majorfactorintheirdecisionsoninteriminjunctions112.Thecriticsfeelthatifthecourtsdecide

onthepossibilityofsuccessonthemeritsinthefinalissueitwouldunderminetheworkofthe

arbitrators.Though,thisisalegitimateconcern,inmostcasesthenecessityforinterimrelief

wouldoutweighthenegativesofrefrainingfromorderinginterimmeasures113.Itisalsopointed

outthatsincemostnationsrecognizetheauthorityofarbitraltribunaltograntinterimmeasures,

theneedforoverlappingpowerstothecourtsisnotnecessary 114.Itisseenasinterferingwiththe

functionsofthetribunal.But,consideringthattherearemanycaseswheretheneedforinterim

measuresisreallyanurgentmatterandarisesevenbeforetheformationofthetribunal,ifthe

courtsarerestrictedinprovidinginterimreliefitwouldharmtheeffectivenessoftheultimate

resolutionofthedispute.Anotherconcernistheavailabilityofappealsforcourtordersand

consequentdelaysthatmaybecausedinresolvingthedispute 115.Thisisrealconcernandhasto

betakencareofbymakingnecessarylegislativeamendmentstoprovideforeffective

enforcementofcourtordersforinterimrelief.

111AlisonC.Wauk,PreliminaryInjunctionsinArbitrableDisputes:TheCaseforLimitedJurisdiction,44

UCLAL.Rev.2061,2073,2074,2075(1997)112MichaelE.Chionopoulos,PreliminaryInjunctionThroughArbitration:TheFranchisorsWeaponof

ChoiceinTrademarkDisputes,20-SUMFranchiseL.J.15(2000)113Teradyne,Inc.v.MostekCorp.,797F.2d43,51(1stCir.1986)Webelievethatthecongressional

desiretoenforcearbitrationagreementswouldfrequentlybefrustratedifthecourtswereprecludedfrom

issuingpreliminaryinjunctiverelieftopreservethestatusquopendingarbitrationand,ipsofacto,the

meaningfulnessofthearbitrationprocess.114WaukSupranote111at2075,2076,2077

115Id


31/80

23

B. PowerofArbitratorstoGrantInterimRelief

Thepowerofarbitratorstograntinterimmeasures,asthatoftheCourtsdependslargely

onthenationalsystems,internationalconventions,agreementbetweenthepartiesandtherules

adoptedbytheparty116.Inmostinstancespartiesdonotdealaboutthatintheircontract,soit

largelydependsonthenationallawandtherulesoftheinstitutionthattheyselect 117.Theeffect

ofinternationaltreatiesandinstitutionalrulesarediscussedindetailinthenextchapter.The

scopeofthissectionistheimpactofthenationallawonthearbitratorspowertograntinterim

relief.

Theacceptanceofarbitratorspowertograntinterimreliefhasseenachangeinthe

recenttimes.Increasinglymanystateshavestartedtorecognizetheneedforinterimrelieffrom

thearbitrators118.Manycommentatorsagreethatunlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,the

tribunalhaspowerstoorderinterimrelief119.Stateshaveadopteddifferingpositiononthiscrucial

issue.NationslikeArgentinaandItalyhadlawsprohibitingarbitratorsfromgrantinginterim

measures

120

.WhereassomenationslikeSwitzerland(whichhasbeendiscussedindetailbelow)

haveprovidedexpressauthorityforthearbitratorstograntinterimrelief 121.IntheUnitedStates,

FAAdoesnottalkaboutthepowersofarbitratorstoawardinterimrelief.Sothenationalposition

dependsheavilyontherulingsoftheCourts.ButtheCourtsasinthecaseoftheirpowerstogrant

interimmeasuresarealsodividedonthisissue.SomeCourtshaveheldthattheywouldrecognize

aninterimorderofthearbitratoronlyifthepartieshaveexpresslyauthorizedthetribunaltodoso

whilesomeothershaverecognizedthearbitratorsauthoritytograntinterimreliefifitis

116BORNSupranote3at756

117VivienneM.Ashman,TheUNCITRALArbitrationRulesandAReviewofCertainPracticesand

Procedures,648PLI/Lit765,780(2001)118TijanaKojovic,CourtEnforcementofArbitralDecisionsonProvisionalRelief,JournalofInternational

Arbitration18(5),p.511119BORNSupranote3at768




32/80

24

consistentwiththearbitrationagreement122.NinthCircuithasconsistentlyrecognizedthe

authorityofthearbitratorsandhasrefusedtoreviewtheirinterimawards.InPacificReinsurance,

whilecitingapreviouscase,JudgeWigginsnotedtheimportanceofrecognizingtheinterim

awardgrantedbythearbitrators123.AnumberofcircuitsincludingtheSixthCircuitandthe

SecondCircuithaverecognizedthispositionofjudicialreviewofnon-finalarbitrationawards

shouldbeindulged,ifatall,onlyinthemostextremecasesandalsohaveagreedthatunless

specificallyprohibitedbyparties,thearbitratorshavepowerstograntinterimrelief.124.Butatthe

sametimesomelowerUScourtshaveruledthatthearbitratorsdonothavethepowertoissue

provisionalreliefunlessthepartiesexpresslyagreetoprovidesointheiragreement125.TheThird

CircuitinSwiftIndus.,Inc.126,andotherlowerUScourtshaverequiredexpressprovisionsinthe

arbitrationagreementorcontrollingstatutetoconfertheauthorityonthearbitratorstogrant

interimrelief127.ButnoCourtinUShassofardeniedtherightofthepartiestoactuallyconfer

therightstothearbitrators128.

122BORNSupranote3at760123PacificReinsuranceManagementCorp.v.OhioReinsuranceCorp.,935F.2d1019,1022(9thCir.1991)

TheNinthCircuithassaidthatbecauseoftheCongressionalpolicyfavoringarbitrationwhenagreedtoby

theparties,judicialreviewofnon-finalarbitrationawards"shouldbeindulged,ifatall,onlyinthemost

extremecases."Aerojet-GeneralCorp.v.AmericanArbitrationAss'n,478F.2d248,251(9th

Cir.1973);at1022-1023Temporaryequitablereliefinarbitrationmaybeessentialtopreserveassetsorenforceperformancewhich,ifnotpreservedorenforced,mayrenderafinalawardmeaningless124IslandCreekCoalSalesCo.v.Gainesville,729F.2d1046(6thCir.1984);SperryInt'lTrade,Inc.v.

Israel,689F.2d301(2dCir.1982);SouthernSeasNavigationLtd.v.PetroleosMexicanos,606F.Supp.692(S.D.N.Y.1985).125BORNSupranote3at760

126SwiftIndus.,Inc.v.BotanyIndus.,Inc.,466F.2d1125(3rdCir.1972)

127CharlesConstructionCo.v.Derderian,586N.E.3d992(Mass.1992)Werejecttheowner'sclaimthat

thecontractor'sonlyavenueforobtaininginterimreliefisthroughacourtorderindependentofthearbitrationproceeding.Wehaveindeedupheldtheentryofprotectivecourtorderseventhoughadispute

betweenthepartiesissubjecttoarbitration.SeeHullMun.LightingPlantv.MassachusettsMun.

WholesaleElec.Co.,399Mass.640,648-649,506N.E.2d140(1987)(preliminaryinjunctionupheldrequiringcontractualpaymentstocontinuewhiledisputeisarbitratedpursuanttocourtorder);Salvucciv.

Sheehan,349Mass.659,663,212N.E.2d243(1965)(billtoreachandapplyfraudulentlyconveyed

propertymaybemaintainedbeforearbitrationproceedingisconcluded).If,however,thereisanexpress

agreementthatauthorizesanarbitratortograntinterimrelief,includinganyauthorizationsetforthinarbitrationrulesincorporatedbyagreementoftheparties,thereisnoreasonwhyanarbitratormaynotact

underthatauthority.Indeed,insuchaninstance,thecourtmightbeobligedbothtodefertotheparties'

agreementtosubmitthematterofinterimrelieftoarbitrationandtogiveanysubsequentinterimorderthe

samedeferentialtreatmentthatmustbeaccordedtoanarbitrator'sfinalorder.Ofcourse,astatutecould

authorizeanarbitratortograntinterimrelief.Therefore,ifthearbitratorshadcontractualorstatutory


33/80

25

TheGermanCivilProcedurecodeSec.1041dealswiththisissue.Ithasadifferent

approachthantheUSposition129.Itgivesthepartiestheoptiontotakeawaythepowerofthe

arbitratorstograntinterimrelief.Priorto1998,whenthenewarbitrationlawcameintobeing,

theGermanlawdidnotrecognizethepowerofthetribunaltoorderinterimrelief130.Evenifthe

arbitratorsneededtogiveaninterimmeasureithadtobeintheformofanawardandnotan

order.Thisawardrequiredanorderofenforcementorexequator131.Butafterthenewarbitration

lawbasedontheUNCITRALModelLawcameintobeingmajorityofthecourtsrecognize

interimordersgrantedbytheTribunal 132.Apartfromtheprovisionalrelief,Germanlawalso

authorizesthearbitratorstoappointexpertsforguidance133.Asnotedearlier,Swisslawtakesan

entirelydifferentpositionthanthatofothernations 134.Art.183oftheSwitzerlandsCodeon

PrivateInternationalLaw,clearlygivespowertothetribunaltoorderinterimmeasures135.There

isnolimitationthathasbeensetinthelegislationtocontroltheauthorityofarbitratorstogrant

authoritytoissueaninterimorder,thecontractorproperlycouldhavesoughtsuchanorderfromthemandwasnotlimitedtoaskingforinterimrelieffromacourt.128BORNSupranote3at760

1291041BookTenZPO(GermanCivilProcedureCode)nowprovidesasfollows:-(1)Unlessotherwise

agreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmay,attherequestofaparty,ordersuchinterimmeasuresof

protectionasthearbitraltribunalmayconsidernecessaryinrespectofthesubjectmatterofthedispute.The

arbitraltribunalmayrequireanypartytoprovideappropriatesecurityinconnectionwithsuchmeasure.(2)

Thecourtmay,attherequestofaparty,permitenforcementofameasurereferredtoinsubsection1unlessapplicationforacorrespondinginterimmeasurehasalreadybeenmadetoacourt.Itmayrecastsuchan

orderifnecessaryforthepurposeofenforcingthemeasure.(3)Thecourtmay,uponrequest,repealor

amendthedecisionreferredtoinsubsection2.(4)Ifameasureorderedundersubsection1provestohave

beenunjustifiedfromtheoutset,thepartywhoobtaineditsenforcementisobligedtocompensatetheother partyfordamagesresultingfromtheenforcementofsuchmeasureorfromhisprovidingsecurityinorder

toavoidenforcement.Thisclaimmaybeputforwardinthependingarbitralproceedings.130EricSchwartz&JurgenMarkSupranote46;Schaefersupranote4131EricSchwartz&JurgenMarkSupranote46

132Id1331049BookTenofZPO(GermanCivilProcedureCode):EXPERTAPPOINTEDBYARBITRAL

TRIBUNAL(1)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmayappointoneormore

expertstoreporttoitonspecificissuestobedeterminedbythearbitraltribunal.Itmayalsorequireapartytogivetheexpertanyrelevantinformationortoproduce,ortoprovideaccessto,anyrelevantdocuments

orpropertyforhisinspection.(2)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,ifapartysorequestsorifthe

arbitraltribunalconsidersitnecessary,theexpertshall,afterdeliveryofhiswrittenororalreport,

participateinanoralhearingwherethepartieshavetheopportunitytoputquestionstohimandtopresentexpertwitnessesinordertotestifyonthepointsatissue.(3)Sections1036and1037subs.1and2apply

mutatismutandistoanexpertappointedbythearbitraltribunal134Seesupranote45

135Id.;seealsoMARCBLESSING,INTRODUCTIONTOARBITRATIONSWISSANDINTERNATIONAL

PERSPECTIVES,Basel(HelbingandLichtenhahn)1999,278


34/80

26

relief.TheEnglishLawliketheGermanlegislationtakesamiddlegroundbetweentheUnited

StatesandSwissposition.Sec.38&39oftheArbitrationActof1996providesforvarioustypes

ofinterimmeasuresavailablefromthearbitrators136.Sec.38(1)givesthepartiestherightto

choosethekindofordersavailabletothetribunal.Ifthepartiesfailtodosothearbitratorscan

providetheorderslistedinSec.38(3),(4),(5)&(6)137.Thesectiondealsprimarilywiththe

orderstoprovidesecurity,protectionandexaminationofproperty,preservationofevidence,etc.

Sec.39oftheActdealswithprovisionalmeasures.But,thepowerstograntprovisionalrelieflike

paymentonaccount,paymentofmoney,dispositionofproperty,etc.willbeavailableonlyifthe

partiesspecificallyagreetoprovidesuchpowerstothetribunal138.

Art.1460ofNewCivilProcedureCodeofFranceallowsthearbitratorstolaydownthe

rulesofprocedureunlessstipulatedbytheparties.SincethereisnootherprovisionintheCode,

whichdealswiththisissue,Art.1460maybetakenasthecontrollingauthority.Italsoprovides

136ArbitrationAct,1996c.23,38GENERALPOWERSEXERCISABLEBYTHETRIBUNAL (1)The

partiesarefreetoagreeonthepowersexercisablebythearbitraltribunalforthepurposesofandinrelation

totheproceedings.(2)Unlessotherwiseagreedbythepartiesthetribunalhasthefollowingpowers.

(3)Thetribunalmayorderaclaimanttoprovidesecurityforthecostsofthearbitration.Thispowershallnotbeexercisedonthegroundthattheclaimantis-(a)anindividualordinarilyresidentoutsidetheUnited

Kingdom,or(b)acorporationorassociationincorporatedorformedunderthelawofacountryoutsidethe

UnitedKingdom,orwhosecentralmanagementandcontrolisexercisedoutsidetheUnitedKingdom.

(4)Thetribunalmaygivedirectionsinrelationtoanypropertywhichisthesubjectoftheproceedingsorastowhichanyquestionarisesintheproceedings,andwhichisownedbyorisinthepossessionofapartyto

theproceedings-(a)fortheinspection,photographing,preservation,custodyordetentionofthepropertyby

thetribunal,anexpertoraparty,or(b)orderingthatsamplesbetakenfrom,oranyobservationbemadeof

orexperimentconductedupon,theproperty.(5)Thetribunalmaydirectthatapartyorwitnessshallbe

examinedonoathoraffirmation,andmayforthatpurposeadministeranynecessaryoathortakeanynecessaryaffirmation.(6)Thetribunalmaygivedirectionstoapartyforthepreservationforthepurposes

oftheproceedingsofanyevidenceinhiscustodyorcontrol

39.POWERTOMAKEPROVISIONALAWARDS (1)Thepartiesarefreetoagreethatthetribunalshallhavepowertoorderonaprovisionalbasisanyreliefwhichitwouldhavepowertograntinafinal

award.(2)Thisincludes,forinstance,making-(a)provisionalorderforthepaymentofmoneyorthe

dispositionofpropertyasbetweentheparties,or(b)anordertomakeaninterimpaymentonaccountofthe

costsofthearbitration.(3)Anysuchordershallbesubjecttothetribunal'sfinaladjudication;andthetribunal'sfinalaward,onthemeritsorastocosts,shalltakeaccountofanysuchorder.(4)Unlessthe

partiesagreetoconfersuchpoweronthetribunal,thetribunalhasnosuchpower.Thisdoesnotaffectits

powersundersection47(awardsondifferentissues,&c.).137Id.

138Id.;WerbickiSupranote20at67


35/80

27

thearbitratorsthepowertoenjoinanypieceofevidenceavailablewiththeparties139.TheIndian

ArbitrationActprovidesforthearbitratorstoorderinterimmeasuresofprotection,butlimits

theirauthoritytothesubjectmatterofthedispute.Italsogivesthepowertodemandsecurityfor

suchorders140.NetherlandsArbitrationActprovidesfortribunalordersinthematterof

appointingexpertsandexaminingwitnesses141.Butinthematterrelatingtoprovisionalor

conservatorymeasuresithasnospecificprovisionotherthantheoneauthorizingthearbitratorsto

grantinterimawards.ThereisnoexplanationintheActofthetypesorthelimitationsonthe

arbitratorstograntinterimrelief142.However,thepartiescanbyspecialagreementempowerthe

tribunalorthechairmantoorderprovisionalmeasuresinsummaryproceedings143.

139Art.1460NCPC-Thearbitratorsshalllaydowntherulesforthearbitrationproceedingswithoutbeing

boundbytherulesgoverningthecourtsoflaw,savewherethepartieshavedecidedotherwiseasstipulatedinthearbitrationagreement.Notwithstandingtheabove,thegoverningprinciplesofproceedingsasenacted

underArticles4to10,11(sub-article1)and13to21shallalwaysbeapplicabletoarbitrationproceedings.

Whereapartyhasinhispossessionanitemofevidence,thearbitratormayenjoinhimtoproducethesame,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org140ArbitrationandConciliationAct,199617.INTERIMMEASURESORDEREDBYARBITRAL

TRIBUNAL(1)Unlessotherwiseagreedbytheparties,thearbitraltribunalmay,attherequestofaparty,

orderapartytotakeanyinterimmeasureofprotectionasthearbitraltribunalmayconsidernecessaryin

respectofthesubject-matterofthedispute.(2)Thearbitraltribunalmayrequireapartytoprovide

appropriatesecurityinconnectionwithameasureorderedundersub-section(1),availableat

http://www.lexmercatoria.org141NetherlandsArbitrationActArticle1041EXAMINATIONOFWITNESSES1.Ifanexaminationof

witnessestakesplace,thearbitraltribunalshalldeterminethetimeandplaceoftheexaminationandthemannerinwhichtheexaminationshallproceed.Ifthearbitraltribunaldeemsitnecessary,itshallexamine

thewitnessesonoathoraffirmationasprovidedinarticle107(1).2.Ifawitnessdoesnotappear

voluntarilyor,havingappeared,refusestogiveevidence,thearbitraltribunalmayallowapartywhosorequests,withinaperiodoftimedeterminedbythearbitraltribunal,topetitionthePresidentoftheDistrict

Courttoappointajudge-commissarybeforewhomtheexaminationofthewitnessshalltakeplace.The

examinationshalltakeplaceinthesamemannerasinordinarycourtproceedings.TheClerkoftheDistrict

Courtshallgivethearbitratororarbitratorsanopportunityofattendingtheexaminationofthewitness.3.

TheClerkoftheDistrictCourtshallcommunicatewithoutdelaytothearbitraltribunalandthepartiesacopyoftherecordoftheexamination.4.Thearbitraltribunalmaysuspendtheproceedingsuntiltheday

onwhichithasreceivedtherecordoftheexamination,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org142NetherlandsArbitrationActArticle1049TYPESOFAWARDThearbitraltribunalmayrenderafinal

award,apartialfinalaward,oraninterimaward,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org143KojovicSupranote118;ArbitrationActArticle1051SUMMARYARBITRALPROCEEDINGS1.

Thepartiesmayagreetoempowerthearbitraltribunaloritschairmantorenderanawardinsummary

proceedings,withinthelimitsimposedbyarticle289(1).2.Intheeventthat,notwithstandingsuchagreement,thecaseisbroughtbeforethePresidentoftheDistrictCourtinsummaryproceedings,hemay,

ifapartyinvokestheexistenceofthesaidagreement,takingintoaccountallcircumstances,declaretohave

nojurisdictionbyreferringthecasetotheagreedsummaryarbitralproceedings,unlessthesaidagreement

isinvalid.3.Adecisionrenderedinsummaryarbitralproceedingsshallberegardedasanarbitralawardto

whichtheprovisionsofSectionsThreetoFiveinclusiveofthisTitleshallbeapplicable.4.Inthecaseofa


36/80

28

Animportantandinterestingissueraisedinthisregardistheconceptofresjudicata,

whenapartyafterdenialbytheCourttoorderforinterimmeasures,approachesthetribunalfor

suchameasure.Thisissuegetsaddedimportanceinareaswheretheconcurrentjurisdictionofthe

Courtsandtribunalisavailable.OneUScourt,whichwasceasedofsuchamatter,ruledthatthe

tribunalhastheauthoritytograntinterimreliefevenafterthedenialofsuchareliefbythe

Court144.SomeotherUSlowercourtshavealsostatedthatawardsmadebythearbitratorsarenot

reviewable,thoughthosedecisionswerenotrelatingtoprovisionalrelief145.

C. EnforcementofInterimMeasuresOrderedbyArbitrators

Asarbitrationinitselfisavoluntarysubmissiontothetribunalbasedonanagreement

betweenparties,theenforcementoftheprovisionalrelieforderedbythetribunalreliesheavilyon

voluntarycomplianceoftheparties146.Buttheproblemariseswhenapartyrefusestocomply

withtheseorders.Oneoftheobviouslimitationsinapproachinganarbitraltribunalfor

provisionalmeasureistheirinabilitytoenforcesuchorders 147.Mostofthestatelegislationsdo

notgiveanypowertothearbitratorsintheissueofenforcement148.Butthearbitratorsdohave

certainwaysofenforcingtheirordersinpractice.Forexampleinmattersrelatingtoevidence,the

tribunalmaypresumenegativeinferenceifapartyrefusestoproduceevidencebeforethe

tribunal149.Likewise,itcanalsousesanctionstoforcethecomplianceorifithascontroloverany

propertyinvolvedinthedispute,itmaypossessthesametoenforceitsorders 150.Alltheseare

subjecttojudicialchallengeinthenationalcourts.Thetribunalsandinsomecasesthepartiescan

referraltothesummaryarbitralproceedingsmentionedinparagraph(2)above,noappealmaybelodged

againstthedecisionofthePresidentoftheDistrictCourt,availableathttp://www.lexmercatoria.org144SperryInt'lTrade,Inc.v.Israel,689F.2d301(2dCir.1982)TheSperrycaseisdiscussedindetailin

thesectiononenforcementofawards.145BORNSupranote3at820;Michaelsv.MariforumshippingSA,624F.2d411(2ndCir.1980)

146KojovicSupranote118

147DavidBrynmorThomas,InterimReliefPursuanttoInstitutionalRulesUndertheEnglishArbitration

Act1996,ArbitrationInternational1997148Id;BORNSupranote3at820

149HorningSupranote8at111150BORNSupranote3at820


37/80

29

alsoseektheassistanceofthenationalcourtsfortheenforcementoftheirawards151.Therefore,

thepositionofthenationalcourtsandthenationallegislationsauthorizingtheenforcementof

interimordersmadebythearbitratorsbecomeimportant.Further,otherimportantissueswhen

dealingwithenforcementarethescopeforreviewoftheorderandthegroundforrefusalto

enforce.CantheCourtsdenyenforcingtheinterimordersiftheyareex-parteorders?

Thesystemofenforcementofprovisionalorderscanbestudiedintwotopics,viz.,the

systemwheretheprovisionalremedyisconsideredanawardandexecutedassuchandthesystem

whereitisconsideredasanorderandthecourtsprovideassistancefortheenforcement.Inthe

formerapproachthechanceforjudicialreviewoftheawardislimitedwhileinthelatterthereis

scopeforreviewoftheorder.Netherlands,UnitedStates,FranceandBelgiumsubscribetothe

formerapproachwhereasSwissandGermanlawtakethelatterapproach152.InNetherlands,the

CourtswillenforceprovisionalmeasuresorderedbytheTribunalpursuanttoArticle1051ofthe

ArbitrationAct,astheywouldenforceaglobalorpartialaward153.InUSandsimilarcountries,

whichviewtheprovisionalreliefasanawardandseektoenforcethemassuchhaveconsidered

theinterimawardasfinalinrelationtothematteritseekstoaddress 154.TheSixthCircuitin

IslandCreek155caseandNewYorkdistrictcourtinSouthernSeas

156havetakenthisviewwhile

enforcingtheprovisionalawardsgrantedbythetribunal 157.AsfarasUSisconcernedtheleading

151KojovicSupranote118;WagonerSupranote24at72

152KojovicSupranote118

153Id.

154Id;BORNSupranote3at820

155IslandCreekcoalSalesCo.v.CityofGainesville,Florida729F.2d1046(6thCir.1984)156SouthernSeasNavigationLimitedofMonroviav.PetroleosMexicanosofMexicoCity606F.Supp.

692(S.D.N.Y.1985)157IslandCreekCoalSalesCo.v.CityofGainesville,Fla.,729F2d1046,1049(6thCir.1984)Chief

JudgeAllenconcludedthat"[t]heinterimawarddisposesofoneself-containedissue,namely,whetherthe

Cityisrequiredtoperformthecontractduringthependencyofthearbitrationproceedings.Th[is]issueisa

separate,discrete,independent,severableissue."MemorandumOpinion,July24,1983,at8.Wedonot

findthisconclusiontobeinerror.;SouthernSeasat693,694Giventheequitablereliefgranted,thisCourtcannotacceptPemex'sargument.Thisawardisnotapartialresolutionoftheparties'claimsasan

intermediatestepinanongoingarbitralprocessbut,ineffect,agrantofapreliminaryinjunction.Asnoted

above,thearbitratorsthemselvesperceivedtherequestinsuchtermsSuchanawardisnot"interim"in

thesenseofbeingan"intermediate"steptowardafurtherend.Rather,itisanendinitself,foritsvery

purposeistoclarifytheparties'rightsinthe"interim"periodpendingafinaldecisiononthemerits.The


38/80

30

caseonthissubjectarisingfrominternationalarbitrationwastheSperrycase158.Inthiscase,the

USCompanySperryInternationalTrade,Inc.enteredintoacontractwiththeGovernmentof

Israel,whichhadanarbitrationclause.Whenadisputearosebetweentheparties,Sperry

approachedtheDistrictCourttocompelarbitrationandforinjunctionrestrainingIsraelfrom

drawingonaletterofcreditpendingarbitration.TheDistrictCourtcompelledarbitrationand

enjoinedIsraelfromdrawingontheletterofcredit.IsraelappealedtotheCourtofAppeals,

whichreversedthepreliminaryinjunctiongrantedbytheDistrictCourtstatingthatSperryhad

notshownirreparableinjurytowarranttheinjunction.Israelimmediatelystartedtodrawonthe

letterofcredit.Butbeforethedispersalofthefunds,SperrymovedtotheNewYorkState

SupremeCourtandobtainedanorderofAttachment.IsraelremovedtheactiontotheFederal

Courtandmovedtovacatetheattachment.Sperrymovedacrossmotiontoconfirmthe

attachmentandalsoarguedbeforethetribunaltoenjoinIsraelfromdrawingontheletterof

credit.TheArbitratorsacceptedSperrysargumentandprovidedaprovisionalaward.Sperry

informedthistotheFederalcourtandalsobroughtamotiontoconfirmtheaward.TheDistrict

Courtconfirmedtheaward.OnAppealtheCourtofAppealsrecognizedtheauthorityofthe

arbitratorstoissueinterimawardsandenforcedit159.ItisinterestingtonotethattheCourtof

Appealswhendiscussingtheissueofenforcementandreview,tookintoaccount9U.S.C9,10

and11160.TheseSectionsoftheFAAdealwiththeenforcementoftheawardsissuedbythe

onlymeaningfulpointatwhichsuchanawardmaybeenforcediswhenitismade,ratherthanafterthe

arbitratorshavecompletelyconcludedconsiderationofalltheparties'claims.158SperryInt'lTrade,Inc.v.Israel,689F.2d301(2dCir.1982)159Id

160Idat304,305Itisbeyondcavilthatthescopeofthedistrictcourt'sreviewofanarbitrationawardis

limited.Under9U.S.C.s9(1976),"thecourtmustgrant...anorder(confirminganarbitrationaward)unlesstheawardisvacated,modified,orcorrectedasprescribedin(9U.S.C.ss10and11(1976))."

Section10permitsthecourttovacateanawardonlyinspecificsituations,suchas"(w)heretheawardwas

procuredbycorruption,fraud,orunduemeans,"s10(a);"(w)heretherewasevidentpartialityorcorruption

inthearbitrators,"s10(b);"(w)herethearbitratorswereguiltyof(certaintypesof)misconduct...orofanyothermisbehaviorbywhichtherightsofanypartyhavebeenprejudiced,"s10(c);or"(w)herethe

arbitratorsexceededtheirpowers,"orfailedtomake"amutual,final,anddefiniteawarduponthesubject

mattersubmitted,"s10(d).Inaddition,anawardmaybesetasideon"thenonstatutorygroundof'manifest

disregard'ofthelaw,"Drayerv.Krasner,572F.2d348,352(2dCir.),cert.denied,436U.S.948,98S.Ct.

2855,56L.Ed.2d791(1978),but"thispresuppose(s)'somethingbeyondanddifferentfromamereerrorin


39/80

31

arbitrators.Thecourtreasonedthattheinterimawardthoughinterimintime,isfinalinregardto

thematteritaimstosolve.Soitappliedthereviewgroundsavailabletothefinalawardsunder

FAA161.EveninacasewheretheMassachusettsStateSuperiorCourtrefusedtoenforcethe

interimreliefgrantedbythearbitrators,itrecognizedtheauthorityofthetribunaltoorderinterim

reliefwhenitissupportedbystatuteorarbitrationagreementbetweentheparties 162.

Swissarbitrationstatuetakesaslightlydifferentapproachbyauthorizingthearbitrators

toseekassistancefromtheCourtsforenforcingtheirinterimorders163.Therearediffering

opinionsonthequestionwhetherthedecisiontoapproachthecourtsforenforcementliesentirely

withthearbitrators.SomeexpertshavesaidthatthepartiescanalsoapproachtheCourtfor

enforcementoftheorders164.Someexpertsalsoviewtheissuesofreviewofthesubstantive

conditionsunderlyingtheordersdifferently165.TheSwisscourtswillprovideassistancefor

enforcementoftheinterimorderseveniftheseatofarbitrationisoutsideSwitzerland.

thelaworfailureonthepartofthearbitratorstounderstandorapplythelaw,'"id.(quotingSanMartine

CompaniadeNavegacion,S.A.v.SaguenayTerminalsLtd.,293F.2d796,801(9thCir.1961)).

9USC9.Awardofarbitrators;confirmation;jurisdiction;procedure:Ifthepartiesintheiragreement

haveagreedthatajudgmentofthecourtshallbeenteredupontheawardmadepursuanttothearbitration,

andshallspecifythecourt,thenatanytimewithinoneyearaftertheawardismadeanypartytothe

arbitrationmayapplytothecourtsospecifiedforanorderconfirmingtheaward,andthereuponthecourtmustgrantsuchanorderunlesstheawardisvacated,modified,orcorrectedasprescribedinsections10

and11ofthistitle.Ifnocourtisspecifiedintheagreementoftheparties,thensuchapplicationmaybe

madetotheUnitedStatescourtinandforthedistrictwithinwhichsuchawardwasmade.Noticeofthe

applicationshallbeservedupontheadverseparty,andthereuponthecourtshallhavejurisdictionofsuchpartyasthoughhehadappearedgenerallyintheproceeding.Iftheadversepartyisaresidentofthedistrict

withinwhichtheawardwasmade,suchserviceshallbemadeupontheadversepartyorhisattorneyas

prescribedbylawforserviceofnoticeofmotioninanactioninthesamecourt.Iftheadversepartyshallbe

anonresident,thenthenoticeoftheapplicationshallbeservedbythemarshalofanydistrictwithinwhich

theadversepartymaybefoundinlikemannerasotherprocessofthecourt.Seealso9USC10&11161Sperry,689F.2dat306Inthefinalanalysis"Arbitratorsmaydojustice"andtheawardmaywell

reflectthespiritratherthantheletteroftheagreement....Thuscourtsmaynotsetasideanawardbecause

theyfeelthatthearbitrator'sinterpretationdisregardstheapparent,oreventheplain,meaningofthewordsorresultedfromamisapplicationofsettledlegalprinciples.Inotherwordsacourtmaynotvacateanaward

becausethearbitratorhasexceededthepowerthecourtwouldhave,orwouldhavehadifthepartieshad

chosentolitigate,ratherthantoarbitratethedispute.Thosewhohavechosenarbitration,astheirforum

shouldrecognizethatarbitrationproceduresandawardsoftendifferfromwhatmaybeexpectedincourtsoflaw.162SeeCharlesConstructionCo.v.Derderian,586N.E.3d992(Mass.1992)

163SeeArt.183ofSwissPrivateInternationalLawSupranote118

164KojovicSupranote118citingopinionsbyleadingexperts

165Id


40/80

32

TheGermanarbitrationstatuealsoauthorizesthecourtstoprovideassistancetoenforce

theinterimordersprovidedthatnosimilarapplicationforinterimreliefispendingbeforethe

court166.FurtherArt.1041(2)providestheCourtswiththeauthoritytoremodeltheinterimrelief

orderedbytribunalstofitthesystemavailabletotheGermancourtsundertheircivillaw167.This

issuewasraisedbeforeaGermancourtwhenenforcingaMarevainjunction.Thecourtwasfaced

withdifficultywhentryingtoimplementtheinjunctionandfinallyenforceditasaninjunction

availabletotheGermancourts168.InmatterswheretheGermancourtshavealreadyrefused

interimreliefandthesamewassubsequentlygrantedbythetribunals,theGermancourtswill

enforcetheordersasgrantedbythetribunal169.Enforcementofinterimordersgrantedbytribunal

sittingoutsideGermanyinGermancourtshasnotbeenclearlyaddressedbythestatute.Sections

1025(2)and(3)whichliststheprovisionsapplicabletoarbitrationwhentheseatisoutside

Germanydoesnotcontaintheprovisiondealingwi

Paper on Arbitration

Documents

Transcript of Paper on Arbitration