This article examines the origins of urgent facilitation in court proceedings and how this laid the groundwork for the emergence of modern emergency arbitration. It then reviews the various grant thresholds adopted by the Asia-Pacific denotation institutes and comments on the value of codifying a subsidy test and the key elements common to the different thresholds adopted. The legal framework adopted by the Asia-Pacific legal systems for the application of legislation and the right to manage appeals in force for the application of emergency arbitration procedures will also be examined. The Browne/Dunn rule refers to the principle that where one party does not respect or wants to discredit the evidence of the other party`s witness, it must cross-examine the witness on the basis of his evidence, if it wants the evidence of the other party`s witness to be ignored or discredited. The applicability of this rule in international arbitration proceedings is controversial, in part because of the tension between the requirement for a party to hear a witness at each point of evidence at issue and, on the other hand, the requirements of the procedural economy. International arbitration must also allow for different legal traditions, many of which do not have the same practice as those that follow the rule of Browne v. Dunn. This controversy reached a new height in 2019, when, in the P.D. case, the High Court of England refused to carry out an arbitration award because it had essentially failed to hear the witness in a crucial act to deliberate him (and therefore, according to the Court, to hear a violation of the rules of natural justice, on the basis of the rule of Browne v.
Dunn). This article discusses the applicability of the rule in Browne v. Dunn on international arbitration procedures and proposes formulations that can be included in procedural decisions to clarify matters and reduce the risk of difficulties in applying an arbitration award. The starting point of a dispute over an agreement containing a compromise clause is, of course, a total disregard for the reference of the dispute to an arbitration procedure, as agreed. This obvious omission of the parties to act as agreed generally means that the courts are required to appoint an arbitrator, as required by law. Recently, there has been a series of petitions alleging the existence of an arbitration agreement and appointing an arbitrator before the Indian courts (section 11 of the act, which falls under the first part). Similarly, there are a number of requests for provisional assistance (section 9 of the law, which is also under the first part) as well as reporting facilities. This practice note should be read in particular in the case of practical instructions: arbitration agreements – definition, purpose and interpretation and arbitration agreements – the written requirement. Other practical information on arbitration agreements is also available on the “Related Documents” pod. The law gives parties enormous freedoms in choosing how they prefer to arbitrate. This is often the end, because most parties do not care enough about the content of this important clause. Parties to an arbitration agreement may choose, among other things, the number of arbitrators, their qualifications, the seat of arbitration, the rules to be followed, the type of hearings that may take place and even agree that the arbitrator will make an unreasonable (as illogical) arbitral award.
These requirements must be met at the time the parties enter into the arbitration agreement.