Arbitration Clauses In Agreements

In the past, it was said that arbitration was quicker than litigation. But this has become less precise with the increasing involvement of lawyers in arbitration proceedings, as well as the difficulties encountered in convening a three-person court. The process has slowed down at a pace similar to that of the courts. Overall, it is now difficult to make a general comparison between the speed of arbitration and litigation, as this will depend on many factors. However, it is important to note here that when there is an appeal of a court decision, arbitration is significantly faster than litigation given that there is little opportunity to make an arbitration decision (see below on the finality of the decision). A recent positive judgment of the Dubai Court of Cassation against Al Rowaad Advocates and Legal Consultants in a commercial case registered in Dubai courts. The case deals with the importance and validity of a compromise clause in any trade agreement signed between the parties and the authority of the courts to reject any civil action under the confirmation and acceptance of the parties for the resolution of disputes by arbitration (as reflected in the agreement). Where a dispute may raise technical or scientific issues, the arbitration process allows the parties to choose a tribunal with the appropriate technical expertise. Depending on the type of litigation (likely), this can have great advantages over a court where you can have a trial before a judge who does not have such knowledge and who must have explained in detail (and cost) what would otherwise be a “given”. First, the expert`s decision is binding (contractually) for the parties (and for the arbitral tribunal) only if the parties have given their consent. In the absence of such an agreement, the expert`s conclusions are non-binding and have only an indicative value, for example. B for future negotiations or for assessing the chances of success of an arbitration procedure.

Many institutional arbitration rules provide for a quick (or expedited) conciliation in which the maximum period is in principle limited to a few months. Accelerated procedures apply primarily when the amounts disputed are relatively small. However, there is nothing to prevent the parties from referring their dispute to expedited arbitration in other cases not provided for by institutional rules. Arbitration is increasingly criticized by some parties and practitioners for their costs and complicated trials. Accelerated procedures may therefore be of interest to users when the amounts of litigation are higher. In the AM agreements as in other types of contracts, it is not always easy to agree on a seat and one party may try to impose a seat that the other party deems inappropriate.