If Parties Agree Upon the Arbitrator in Their Contract, They May Not Apply To the Court To Nominate Another Arbitrator

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 336-337 ◽  

AbstractIn an action filed by a local company which had contracted to build commercial premises for the defendant, the Dubai Court of Cassation held that the plaintiff may not apply to the court requesting the court to refer a dispute to arbitration or to nominate another arbitrator if the parties have agreed in their contracts to refer their dispute to arbitration and have nominated the arbitrator, unless the arbitrator has resigned or was unable to act or there was a legal reason preventing him from acting as an arbitrator. Otherwise, the parties must adhere to their agreement and may not apply to the court to change the arbitrator or cancel the arbitration clause. Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to prove to the court that one of these conditions applied to this case. The court held that there was no evidence to show that the arbitrator nominated by the parties refused to act in this case nor was there legal evidence to prevent him from acting. Accordingly, the action was dismissed and the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance was upheld.

Author(s):  
Lloyd L. Weinreb
Keyword(s):  

1982 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 535-536
Author(s):  
Lawrence S. Wrightsman

BMJ ◽  
1867 ◽  
Vol 2 (361) ◽  
pp. 492-494
Author(s):  
S. M. Macswiney
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minna Kimpimäki

AbstractIn June 2010, a Rwandan citizen, Francois Bazaramba, was sentenced in a Finnish court of first instance, to life imprisonment for acts of genocide committed in Rwanda in 1994. This was the first time that the provisions of Finnish law dealing with genocide had ever been applied in a court. This article examines the details of this case, as well as the Finnish legislation on genocide, jurisdiction and extradition. Many of the questions considered in this article are not only typical for Finland, but have a more general bearing as well. For instance, the issues relating to the transfer or extradition of fugitives to Rwanda have recently been considered in several national and international jurisdictions. A trial conducted in a national court on the basis of universal jurisdiction reveals in a concrete way the advantages and disadvantages of this form of prosecution.


Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Sandrine Brachotte

This article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conception of arbitration. It further identifies two intertwined issues regarding cultural diversity, which find their source in this monist conception. Firstly, through the study of Jivraj v. Hashwani ([2011] UKSC 40), this article shows that the governance of religious arbitration may generate a conflict between arbitration law and equality law, the avoidance of which can require sacrificing the objectives of one or the other branch of law. The Jivraj case concerned an Ismaili arbitration clause, requiring that all arbitrators be Ismaili—a clause valid under arbitration law but potentially not under employment-equality law. To avoid such conflict, the Supreme Court reduced the scope of employment-equality law, thereby excluding self-employed persons. Secondly, based on cultural studies of law, this article shows that the conception of arbitration underlying UK arbitration law is ill-suited to make sense of Ismaili arbitration. In view of these two issues, this article argues that UK arbitration law acknowledges normative multiplicity but fails to embrace the cultural diversity entangled therewith.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document