global perspectives on adr

global perspectives on adr

Edited by

carlos esplugues silvia barona

cambridge – antwerp – portland

global perspectives on adrcarlos esplugues and silvia barona (eds.)

© 2014 intersentia cambridge – antwerp – portland www.intersentia.com | www.intersentia.co.uk

isbn 978-1-78068-139-9d/2014/7849/10nUr 820

british library cataloguing in publication data. a catalogue record for this book is available from the british library.

no part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

Distribution for the UK:nbn internationalairport business centre, 10 Thornbury roadplymouth, pl6 7 ppUnited Kingdomtel.: +44 1752 202 301 | Fax: +44 1752 202 331email: orders@nbninternational.com

Distribution for the USA and Canada:international specialized book services920 ne 58th ave. suite 300portland, or 97213Usatel.: +1 800 944 6190 (toll free)email: info@isbs.com

Distribution for Austria:neuer Wissenschaftlicher verlagargentinierstraße 42/61040 Wienaustriatel.: +43 1 535 61 03 24email: office@nwv.at

Distribution for other countries:intersentia publishing nvgroenstraat 312640 Mortselbelgiumtel.: +32 3 680 15 50email: mail@intersentia.be

intersentia publishing ltd.trinity House | cambridge business park | cowley roadcambridge | cb4 0WZ | United Kingdomtel.: +44 1223 393 753 | email: mail@intersentia.co.uk

intersentia v

Preface

Modern societies are increasingly complex. This complexity tends to be accompanied by a continuous escalation in litigiousness. The more developed a society is, the more disputes tend to exist. Moreover, these tend to be increasingly heterogeneous and complicated. This situation has a direct effect both on the state’s system of justice and on the implementation of the principle of access to justice for citizens. Figures show the growing inability of the state, the single holder of the monopoly of justice in recent times, to cope with this situation. The state tries to tackle this soaring reality by way of different tools. Thus many national regulations on civil procedure have undertaken reforms in the last years, in an attempt to make it quicker and more tailored to the needs of the parties. additionally, huge amounts of money have been invested in the strengthening of the state’s system of justice.

Unfortunately all these measures taken so far by many state legislators seem to have not been fully successful. The judiciary seems increasingly incapable of giving a valid response to the continuously growing number of disputes lodged before them, disputes of different nature and difficulty which deserve a quick, sound, affordable and, in many cases, specialised response. already overworked courts face a huge workload and this fact directly affects access to justice for citizens; delayed justice implies in too many cases absence of justice.

This circumstance creates an increasing feeling of failure as regards the ability of the state to preserve and ensure the fundamental right of access to justice to citizens. The enormous budgetary effort made by many states as regards the judiciary has been insufficient in providing citizens with a valid and certain response to their legal problems. in addition to that, this situation does not only exist in Western countries; it tends to repeat itself in many other parts of the world. and the true problem is that, far from stopping, it will most probably continue to grow in the future thus putting the whole state’s system of justice under increasing pressure, precisely at a time when many countries are facing budgetary constraints.

citizens have long tried to surmount this situation in different ways. in some cases, they have adopted a purely passive attitude. in certain cases it seems more sound and inexpensive to leave the dispute unresolved than to refer it to state courts that in too many cases will render a late, unspecialised and not always certain response. in other situations, citizens have tended to explore the possibility of referring their disputes to non-judicial means of dispute resolution:

preface

vi intersentia

the so-called alternative dispute resolution devices. arbitration, mediation, conciliation or negotiation are all embodied within this movement. each one of them enjoys a different level of acceptance and implementation.

certainly, problems undergone by the judiciary in many countries have entailed a correlative increasing resort to adr devices as a way to ensure access to justice to citizens, at least in certain areas of law. nevertheless, the use of adr has been different in the several geographical areas of the world and has also varied regarding the specific adr device referred to and the kind of disputes involved. arbitration has so far been the most commonly used tool, although nowadays mediation is also gaining popularity.

adr devices allow citizens to find responses to their need of justice. Many of these devices are not new insofar as they have long existed in national legislation, although the problems generated by complex modern society have granted them a certain image of novelty. in any case, the response provided by adr devices is subject to some criticism of a different kind. From a justice standpoint, adr may be regarded with some caution insofar as it is a private response which entails costs for citizens and that gives rise to a response not controlled by the state. From a systemic standpoint, the response provided has tended to be too limited in terms of the number of cases dealt with and of the sectors affected by it. Moreover its expansion has entailed a reproduction of some of the most criticised vices of the judiciary: growing costs, lack of speediness or absence of certainty in the response provided. in fact, within the adr movement these problems favour mediation rather than arbitration.

The state has long enjoyed the monopoly on justice, but this time seems to be coming to an end. The state as the single provider of justice services for citizens seems to be under growing scrutiny. despite all the moves undergone and the huge budgetary effort made by the state, it seems incapable of ensuring access to justice to citizens in this complex modern society in which we live. Mistrust of the judiciary has favoured growing resort to adr devices for citizens but, at the same time, these devices seem not to form a global and real alternative to state courts insofar as they enjoy a limited use and provide a reduced response to a huge problem.

complex societies and complex problems require complex solutions. and assuring full access to justice for citizens seems to demand an elaborated and sophisticated response too. it is time to offer citizens flexible and easily tailored solutions for them far away from doctrinal responses. That implies that state courts and adr devices should no longer be viewed as real and separate alternatives lacking any contact with each other.

adr can no longer be approached as a global alternative to state courts with the aim of leaving courts aside. state courts and non-judicial methods of dispute resolution should not be considered as two juxtaposed and independent realities which run parallel each other with no contact whatsoever. sophisticated and

preface

intersentia vii

collaborative responses are needed for citizens to have their duty to receive speedy, affordable and certain redress ensured. That implies a reshaping of the notion of full access to justice for citizens which should be based on the understanding of state courts and adr as two different realities that actually interact when necessary to ensure citizens gain redress.

This new approach to access to justice means that it is for the parties to decide freely whether they refer their dispute to state courts or to adr or to any of the mixed devices that increasingly exist in practice. This option must be chosen by them freely and taking into account their situation and legal expectations. it should not be directed or favoured by the state in any case and should not be based on budgetary concerns. We are not dealing with a budgetary question, namely whether the state should spend more or less on the judiciary and whether resort to adr devices by citizens may result in some saving by the state. acceptance by the state of the role played by the adr movement should not come accompanied by a correlative weakening or impoverishment of the judiciary. The situation is different; we are simply offering citizens a multi-gear solution for having their disputes resolved and it is for them to decide how to approach and tackle them.

The new understanding of access to justice supposes that this basic fundamental right should no longer be understood as access solely to state courts of justice. on the contrary it should signify access to any of the existing available instruments for the parties to have their dispute resolved. The time of fully alternative responses is gone and a new era of proposals’ plurality is arriving. The traditional concept of access to justice now implies a reference to a certain number of possibilities for the parties to obtain redress to their disputes. This opens up a new horizon for them that is much more easily adapted to their needs. but in order for this to be operative, citizens must be well aware of the existence of this alternative and, relatedly, of what adr means, implies and supposes for them.

This book is based on this new understanding of access to justice and it looks to the future. accordingly it approaches the reality of adr in some of the most relevant countries of the growing asian-pacific economic area, the area in which the game of the future will be played. These countries tend to share the same problems of a growing number of disputes in a framework of overworked state courts and enormous amounts of money spent on the judiciary by national governments as in Western countries. but because they have different legal and historical backgrounds the response provided by them distinguishes one from another.

The book is written by leading academics and practitioners and it makes reference to both the existing legal basis for adr in each of these jurisdictions and the way these rules are implemented. it offers an exhaustive analysis of the existing situation in these nations and tries to trace some common trends for the

preface

viii intersentia

future development of adr in this area of the world. insofar as adr has historically been a reality very much linked to common law countries and because some of the major asia-pacific states still belong to the british commonwealth, a necessary reference to two european common law countries, britain and ireland, is also included. despite the historical link between these two countries, their origin, culture and legal responses vary and allow the reader to compare them with the development that is currently happening far away, in the asia-pacific area.

This publication marks the way ahead. We hope that it will become a useful tool for practitioners and academics. The future of adr and, by way of its potential interaction with state courts, of the understanding of what access to justice really means and implies for citizens, needs to ensure that all those involved in justice – judges, parties or legal practitioners – have a clear understanding of the existence of adr as a complementary way to solve disputes, of its significance, consequences, advantages and also of those difficulties that its use may entail. With this book we want to contribute to this goal.

This book is direct result of the research project der2010–17126 sponsored by the Ministry of education of spain on ‘la experiencia del arbitraje y la mediación en los sistemas anglosajones y asiáticos y su incorporación en el nuevo modelo de justicia española del siglo XXi’, to which many of the authors belong.

We would like to finish this preface by thanking Ms María aranzazu gandía sellés, phd student and assistant at the department of international law of the University of valencia for her constant and valuable help and support in editing the present book.

carlos esplugues and silvia baronavalencia, 22 January 2013

intersentia ix

contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vTable of Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiList of Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxixList of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxxv

adr Mechanisms and their incorporation into global Justice in the twenty-First century: some concepts and trends

silvia barona and carlos esplugues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

australiadavid bamford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

chinaYuanshi bu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

england and Walesneil andrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Hong Konggavin denton and Fan Kun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

indiadarius J. Khambata, aditya n. Mehta and naira J. Jejeebhoy . . . . . . . 165

indonesiaMarcella elwina simandjuntak, valentinus suroto and b. resti nurhayati . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

irelandguillermo palao Moreno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

JapanMasaaki Haga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

Koreagyooho lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

contents

x intersentia

philippinesdonemark J.l. calimon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

singaporeJoel lee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

Thailandsuparb vongkiatkachorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421

United states: arbitrationgeorge a. bermann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

United states: Mediationshanin specter and Jason l. pearlman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537

intersentia xi

table of cases

aUstralIa

– Ezekiel-Hart v. Law Society (ACT) [2012] actsc 135– Idoport Pty Ltd v. National Australia Bank [2001] nsWsc 427– Mabo v. State of Queensland (No 2) (1992) 175 clr 1– Newcastle City Council v. Paul Wieland [2009] nsWca 113– Tapoohi v. Lewenberg (No 2) [2003] vsc 410

canaDa

– Moore v. Bertuzzi, 2012 onsc 597– Noble China Inc v. Lei (1998) 42 or (3d) 69; 42 blr (2d) 262– Rains v. Molea, 2012 onsc 4906– The United Mexican States v. Cargill Inc., 2011 onca 622

eUroPean coUrt of JUstIce

– ecJ Judgment of 17.11.1998, in case c-391/95, Van Uden Maritime / Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and others (ECR 1998 p. i-7091)

– ecJ Judgment of 26.10.2006, in case c-168/05, Mostaza Claro (ECR 2006 p. i-10421)

– ecJ Judgment of 06.10.2009, in case c-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones (ECR 2009 p. i-9575)

– ecJ judgment of 10.02.2009, in case c-185/07, Allianz (formerly Riunione Adriatica di Sicurtà) (ECR 2009 p. i-663)

enGlanD anD wales

– AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] UKsc 35

– African Fertilizers and Chemicals NIG Ltd (Nigeria) v. BD Shipsnavo GmbH & Co Reederei KG [2011] eWHc 2452 (comm)

– Aird v. Prime Meridian Ltd [2006] eWca civ 1866– Allianz SpA etc v. West Tankers (c-185/07) [2009] 1 ac 1138; [2009] 1 all er

(comm) 435; [2009] 1 lloyd’s rep 413; [2009] 1 clc 96; [2009] ilpr 20

table of cases

xii intersentia

– Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Ltd v. European Reinsurance Co of Zurich [2003] UKpc 11

– Barnetson v. Framlington Group Ltd [2007] eWca civ 502; [2007] 1 Wlr 2443

– Bea Hotels NV v. Bellway LLC [2007] eWHc 1363 (comm).– Bevan Ashford (a firm) v. Geoff Yeandle (Contractors) Ltd (in liquidation)

[1998] all er (d) 138– Bradford & Bingley plc v. Rashid [2006] UKHl 37; [2006] 1 Wlr 2066– Bremer Vulcan v. South India Shipping Corporation Limited [1981] ac 909,

Hl– Brown v. Rice [2007] eWHc 625 (ch)– C v. D [2007] eWca civ 1282; [2008] 1 lloyd’s rep 239– Cable & Wireless v. IBM United Kingdom Ltd [2002] 2 all er (comm) 1041– Canonway Consultants Ltd v Kenworth Engineering Ltd [1997] adrlJ 95– Carleton v. Strutt & Parker [2008] eWHc 424– Clyde & Co v. Bates van Winkelhof [2011] eWHc 668 (Qb)– Cumbria Waste Management Ltd v. Baines Wilson [2008] eWHc 786 (Qb)– Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co v. Pakistan [2010] UKsc 46; [2010]

3 Wlr 1472– Downing v. Al Tameer Establishment [2002] eWca civ 721– Dunnett v. Railtrack plc [2002] 1 Wlr 2434, ca– Emmott v. Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2008] eWca civ 184– English Churches Housing Group v. Shine [2004] eWca civ 434– Farm Assist Limited (in liquidation) v. The Secretary of State for the

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) [2009] eWHc 1102 (tcc); [2009] blr 399; 125 con lr 154

– Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v. Privalov [2007] UKHl 40; [2007] 4 all er 951; [2007] eWca civ 20

– Fulham FC (1987) Ltd v. Richards [2010] eWHc 3111 (ch); [2011] 2 all er 112

– Guangzhou Dockyards Co Ltd v. ENE Aegiali I [2010] eWHc 2826– Halpern v. Halpern (No 2) [2007] eWca civ 291– Halsey v. Milton Keynes General NHS Trust [2004] eWca civ 576; [2004]

1 Wlr 3002; [2004] 4 all er 920– Itochu Corporation v. Johann M.K. Blumenthal GMBH & Co KG & Anr [2012]

eWca civ 996– Jivraj v. Hashwani [2011] UKsc 40; [2011] 1 Wlr 1872– JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov [2011] eWHc 587 (comm)– Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impreglio SpS [2006] 1 ac 22, Hl– Lombard North Central plc and another v. GATX Corporation [2012] eWHc

1067 (comm)– Martin Dawes v. Treasure & Son Ltd [2010] eWHc 3218

table of cases

intersentia xiii

– Mary Harvey v. Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Qbd (Merc) (Manchester), claim no: 0Ma40077, 21.12.2011, unreported)

– McMillan Williams v. Range [2004] eWca civ 294; [2004] 1 Wlr 1858– Michael Wilson & Partners v. Sinclair [2012] eWHc 2560– Midgulf International Ltd v. Groupe Chimiche Tunisien [2010] eWca civ 66;

[2010] 1 clc 113– Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v. Petroleos De Venezuela SA [2008] eWHc 532

(comm)– Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v. TMT Asia Ltd [2010] UKsc 44; [2010]

3 Wlr 1424 (reversing [2010] eWca civ 79; [2010] 1 Wlr 1803)– P4 Ltd v. Unite Integrated Solutions plc [2006] eWHc 2924 (tcc)– Petrochemical Industries Co. (KSC) v. Dow Chemical Co. [2012] eWHc 2739

(comm)– Pioneer Shipping v. BTP Tioxide Ltd (‘The Nema’) [1982] ac 724– Reed Executive plc v. Reed Business Information Ltd [2004] eWca civ 887;

[2004] 1 Wlr 3026– Shashoua v. Sharma [2009] eWHc 957– Shell Egypt West Manzala GmbH v. Dana Gas Egypt Ltd [2009] eWHc 2097

(comm)– Shipping Ltd of India v. TTMI Ltd of England (‘The Amer Energy’) [2009] 1

lloyd’s rep 293– Smith v. Weiss [2002] all er (d) 356– Sulamerica CIA Nacional de Seguros SA v. Enesa Engenharia SA [2012]

eWca civ 638– Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v. Government of the Republic of Lithuania

(No 2) [2006] eWca civ 1529; [2007] Qb 886– Swain Mason and others v. Mills & Reeve (a firm) [2012] eWca civ 498– Turner v. Grovit (2001) [2001] UKHl 65; [2002] 1 Wlr 107– Unilever plc v. The Proctor & Gamble Co. [2000] 1 Wlr 2436, ca– Venture Investment v. Hall [2005] eWHc 1227 (ch)– Virani Ltd v. Manuel Revert y Cia SA [2003] eWca civ 1651; [2004] 2 lloyd’s

rep 14– West Tankers Inc v. Allianz SpA and another [2012] eWHc 854 (comm)– West Tankers Inc v. Allianz SpA v. Generali Assicurazione Generali SpA [2012]

eWca civ 27– Westacre Investments Inc v. Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Company Ltd [1999]

applr 05/12– Wuhan Ocean Economic & Technical Cooperation Co. Ltd and another v.

Schiffharts-Gesselschaft ‘Hansa Murcia’ MBH & Co. KG [2012] eWHc 3104– Yukos Capital SARL v. OJSC Rosneft Oil Company (No 2) [2012] eWca civ

855; [2012] Wlr (d) 186

table of cases

xiv intersentia

france

– Aïta v. Ojjeh (cour d’appel de paris, 18.2.1986, 1 chambre supple. (1986) Revue de l’Arbitrage 583)

– Bleustein v. Société True North et Société FCB International (trib. de commerce de paris, ord. réf, 08.10.2002, (2003) Revue de l’Arbitrage 189)

– Gouvernement du Pakistan v. Société Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. (cour d’appel de paris, pôle 1 – ch. 1, n°  09/28533, 17.02.2011, (2011) Revue de l’Arbitrage 286)

– S.A.J. & P. Avaxv. Société Tecnimon (cour d’appel de reims, cour de renvoi, 02.11.2011, n° 10/02888, (2012) ASA Bulletin 189)

– Société Hilmarton v. Société OTV (cour de cassation, 1st chambre civil, 23.03.1994, (1994) Revue de l’Arbitrage 327)

– Société PT Putrabali Adyamulia v. Société Rena Holding et Société Mnogutia Est Epices (cour de cassation, 1 chambre, 29.06.2007, (2007) Revue de l’Arbitrage 507)

HonG KonG

– A v. R [2009] 3 HKlrd 389– Democratic Republic of Congo v. FG Hemisphere Assocs. LLC [2011] 4 HKc

151– FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo [2010] 2 HKc

487, ca– Gao Haiyan and another v. Keeneye Holdings Ltd and another (No 2) [2012] 1

HKc 491– Gao Haiyan and Xie Heping v. Keeneye Holdings Ltd [2011] 3 HKc 157– Golden Eagle International (Group) Ltd v. GR Investment Holdings Ltd [2010]

3 HKlrd 273– Hak Tung Alfred Tang v. Bloomberg LP [2010] HKec 1227– Ng Fung Hong Ltd v. ABC [1998] 1 HKc 213– Pacific China Holdings Ltd v. Grand Pacific Holdings Ltd (2012) HKec 645;

(2011) HKlrd 611

IcsID1

– Abaclat and others v. Argentine Republic (icsid case no. arb/07/5, formerly Giovanna a Beccara and others v. Argentine Republic) 

– Barnmore Demolition and Civil Engineering Ltd, Alandale Logistics Ltd, et al., and Bayindir Insaat Turizm Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (icsid case no. arb/03/29)

1 available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/icsid/Frontservlet.

table of cases

intersentia xv

– Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador (icsid case no. arb/06/11)

– Salini Costruttori SpA and Italstrade SpA v. Kingdom of Morocco (icsid case no. arb/00/4)

– SGS Société Générale de Surveillance SA v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan (icsid case no. arb/01/13)

– World Duty Free Company Limited v. Republic of Kenya (icsid case no. arb/00/7)

InDIa

– Abdul Kadir v. Madhav Oak, air 1962 sc 406– Aboobakar Latif v. Reception Committee, air 1937 bom 410– Ace Pipeline Contracts Pvt Ltd v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (2007) 5

scc 304– Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd (2010) 8

scc 24– Alcove Industries Ltd v. Oriental Structural Engineers (2008) 1 arblr 393

(del), 423– Apparel Export Promotion Council v. Prabhati Patni (2005) 3 arblr 518

(del), 530– Arvind Construction Co Pvt Ltd v. Kalinga Mining Corpn (2007) 6 scc 798– Aurohill Global Commodities Ltd v. MSTC Ltd (2007) 7 scc 120– B.P. Moideen Sevamandir v. A.M. Kutty Hassan (2009) 2 scc 198– Babubhai Tansukhlal v. Madhavji Govindji & Co., air 1931 bom 343– Bharat Aluminium v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Services (civil appeal no.

7019 of 2005) (2012) 9 scc 552– Bharat M. Nagori v. Satish Ashok Sabnis (2003) 6 bomcr 257– Bharat Rasiklal Ashra v. Gautam Rasiklal Ashra (2012) 2 scc 144– Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Motorola India Pvt Ltd (2009) 2 scc 337– Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA (2002) 4 scc 105– Bihar State Mineral Development Corpn v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Ltd (2003) 7

scc 418– Booz Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance Ltd (2011) 5 scc 532– BSES Ltd v. Fenner India Ltd (2006) 2 scc 728– CDC Financial Services (Mauritius) Ltd v. BPL Communications Ltd (2003) 12

scc 140– Centrotrade Minerals & Metals Inc. v. Hindustan Copper Ltd (2006) 11 scc

245– Chandrabhan Bilotia v. Ganpatrai & Sons, air 1944 cal. 127– Chetandas Daga v. Radhakissen Ramchandra, air 1927 bom 553– Chief Signal v. Hytronics Enterprises (2006) 2 arblr 343 (ap)

table of cases

xvi intersentia

– Chiranjilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh (1993) 2 scc 507– Chloro Controls (I) P Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. and others

(2013) 1 scc 641; (2012) 4 arb lr 1 (sc)– Citation Infowares Ltd v. Equinox Corpn (2009) 7 scc 220– CMC Ltd v. Unit Trust of India (2007) 10 scc 751– Dakshin Shelters (P) Ltd v. Geeta S. Johari (2012) 5 scc 152– Damodar Valley Corpn v. Central Concrete & Allied Products Ltd (2007)

3 arblr 531 (cal)– Datar Switchgears Ltd v. Tata Finance Ltd (2000) 8 scc 151– Deepak Mitra v. D.J. Allahabad, air 2000 all 9– Denel (Pty) Ltd v. Ministry of Defence (2012) 2 scc 759– Deutsche Post Bank Home Finance Ltd v. Taduri Sridhar (2011) 11 scc 375– Dozco India Pvt Ltd v. Doosan Infracore Co. Ltd (2011) 6 scc 179– Dresser Rand SA v. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd (2006) 1 scc 751– Eitzen Bulk A/S v. Ashapura Minechem Ltd (2012) 2 bomcr 168– Firm Ashok Traders v. Gurumukh Das Saluja (2004) 3 scc 155– Food Corpn of India v. Indian Council of Arbitration (2003) 6 scc 564– Food Corporation of India v. A.M. Ahmed & Co. (2006) 13 scc 779– Fountain Head Developers v. Maria Arcangela Seqieura (2007) 3 bomcr 393– Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd v. Jindal Exports Ltd (2001) 6 scc 356– Gas Authority of India Ltd v. Keti Construction (I) Ltd (2007) 5 scc 38– G.E. Countrywide Consumer Financial Services Ltd v. S.S. Bhatia (2006)

2 arblr 170 (del)– Ghetulal Parekh v. Mahadeodas Mauja, air 1959 sc 781– Girish Mulchand Mehta v. Mahesh S. Mehta (2010) 1 bomcr 31 (db)– Global Co. v. National Fertilizers Ltd, air 1998 del 397– Great Offshore Ltd v Iranian Offshore Engineering & Construction Co. (2008)

14 scc 240– Guru Nanak Foundation v. Rattan Singh (1981) 4 scc 634– H. Srinivas Pai v. H.V. Pai, (2010) 12 scc 521– Hardy Oil & Gas Ltd v. Hindustan Oil Exploration Co. Ltd (2006) 1 guj lr 658– Harendra H. Mehta v. Mukesh H. Mehta (1999) 5 scc 108– Harjit Singh v. Delhi Development Authority (2009) 2 arblr 349 (del-db)– Haryana Telecom Ltd v Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd (1999) 5 scc 688– Hindustan Shipyard Ltd v. Essar Oil Ltd (2005) 1 raJ 132 (ap)– Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Friends Coal Carbonisation (2006) 4 scc 445– Indian Oil Corpn Ltd v. Raja Transport (P) Ltd (2009) 8 scc 520– Indian Oil Corpn v. SPS Engg Ltd (2011) 3 scc 507– Indowind Energy Ltd v. Wescare (I) Ltd (2010) 5 scc 306– Indtel Technical Services Pvt Ltd v. W.S. Atkins Rail Ltd (2008) 10 scc 308– International Airports Authority of India v. K.D. Bali (1988) 2 scc 360– Ispat Industries Ltd v. Baby Samuel & Co. (2009) 1 MahlJ 1000

table of cases

intersentia xvii

– ITI Ltd v. Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd (2002) 5 scc 510– Ivory Properties & Hotels Pvt Ltd v. Nusli Wadia (2011) 2 bomcr 559– Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander (2007) 5 scc 719– Jagmohan Singh Gujral v. Satish Ashok Sabnis (2004) 1 bomcr 307– Jain Studios v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd (2006) 5 scc 501– J.B. Engineers Pvt Ltd v. Union of India (2011) 5 scc 758– J.G. Engineers (P) Ltd v. Union of India (2011) 5 scc 758– J.S. Ocean Liner LLC v. MV Golden Progress (2007) 2 bomcr 1– Keshav Singh Dwarkadas Kapadia v. Indian Engineering Co., air 1969

bom 227– Keshav Singh Dwarkadas Kapadia v. Indian Engineering Co. (1971) 2 scc 706– K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi (1998) 3 scc 573– K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji (2012) 2 scc 51– Konkan Railway Corpn Ltd v. Rani Construction Pvt Ltd (2002) 2 scc 388– Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd v. Girja Shankar Pant (2001) 1 scc 182– Ladli Construction Co. (P) Ltd v. Punjab Police Housing Corpn Ltd (2012)

4 scc 609– Magna Leasing & Finance Ltd v. Potluri Madhavilata (2009) 10 scc 103– Maharashtra State Electricity Board v. Datar Switchgear Ltd (2003) 2 bomcr

81– Maintech Engineers v. Jogindra Steel Tubes Ltd (1993) 51 dlt 463– Marketing Federation India Ltd v. Gains Trading Ltd (2007) 5 scc 692– McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd (2006) 11 scc 181– M.D., Army Welfare Housing v. Sumangal Services Pvt Ltd (2004) 9 scc 619– Momentous.ca Corpn v. Canadian American Association of Professional

Baseball Ltd (2012) scc 9– Moradabad Development Authority v. VR Construction & Engineering Co.

(2007) supp arblr 80– Morgan Securities and Credit (Private) Ltd v. Modi Rubber Ltd (2006) 12 scc

642– M.R. Engineers & Contractors (P) Ltd v. Som Datt Builders Ltd (2009) 7 scc

696– M.R. Power Projects v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (2009) 4 gaulr 154– Mukesh H. Mehta v. Harendra H. Mehta (1995) 5 complJ 517 (bom)– N. Srinivasa v. Kuttukaran Machine Tools Ltd (2009) 5 scc 182– N. Radhakrishnan v. Maestro Engineers (2010) 1 scc 72– Nandos Indage v. Nando’s Resources BV (2009) 4 bomcr 139– Narayan Prasad Lohia v. Nikunj Kumar Lohia (2002) 3 scc 572– National Ability SA v. Tinna Oil and Chemicals Ltd (2008) 3 arblr 37 (del)– National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation India Ltd v. Gains Trading

Ltd (2007) 5 scc 692

table of cases

xviii intersentia

– National Highways Authority of India v. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd (2008) 3 arblr 56

– National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd (2009) 1 scc 267– Natraj Studios (P) Ltd v. Navrang Studios (1981) 1 scc 523– Nirma Ltd v. Lurgi Lentjes Energietechnik GmbH (2002) 5 scc 520– Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railways v. Patel Engineering

Co. Ltd (2008) 10 scc 240– Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics Inc. v. Aventis Pharma, judgment of

03.10.2007 in arbitration petition no. 302 of 2007, bombay High court (unreported)

– NTPC v. Singer Company (1992) 3 scc 551– Numaligarh Refinery Ltd v. Daelim Industrial Co. Ltd (2007) 8 scc 466– Olympus Superstructures Pvt Ltd v. Meena Vijay Khetan (1999) 5 scc 651– OPBK Construction Pvt Ltd v. Punjab Small Industries (2008) 3 arb lr 189

(p&H)– Oriental Instruance Co. Ltd v. Unitech Ltd (2008) 1 arb lr 187 (del)– P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. PVG Raju (2000) 4 scc 539– Pandey & Co. Builders Pvt Ltd v. State of Bihar (2007) 1 scc 467– Paramita Constructions Pvt Ltd v. UE Development India Pvt Ltd (2008)

3 arblr 522– Percept D’Mark (India) Pvt Ltd v. Zaheer Khan (2006) 4 scc 227– Phulchand Exports Ltd v O.O.O. Patriot (2011) 10 scc 300– Powertech World Wide Ltd v. Delvin International General Trading LLC

(2012) 1 scc 361– P.R. Shah Share & Stock Brokers v. BHH Securities (2012) 1 scc 594– Prima Buildwell (Pvt) Ltd v. Lost City Developments LLC (2011) 3 arblr 350– Prima Developers v. Lords Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd (2009)

2 arblr 387– P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005) 6 scc 478– R.M. Investments & Trading Co. P. Ltd v. Boeing Co. (1994) 4 scc 541– R.S. Avatar Singh and Co. v. Indian Tourism Development Corpn Ltd, air

2003 del 249– R.S. Jiwani v. Ircon International Ltd (2010) 1 bomcr 529 (Fb)– Rambaksh Lachmandas v. Bombay Cotton Co., air 1931 bom 81– Ramesh Kumar v. Furu Ram (2011) 8 scc 613– Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd v. Verma Transport Co. (2006) 7 scc 275– Renusagar Power Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co. (1984) 4 scc 679– Rickers Verwaltung GmbH v. Indian Oil Corpn Ltd (1999) 1 scc 1– Rukmanibai Gupta v. Collector, Jabalpur (1980) 4 scc 556– Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India (2003) 1 scc 49– Sakuma Exports Ltd v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities (2012) 1 bomcr 547– SBP & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd (2005) 8 scc 618

table of cases

intersentia xix

– Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc. (2011) scc 15 (canlii)– Shin-Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd v. Aksh Optifiber Ltd (2005) 7 scc 234– Shree Ram Mills Ltd v. Utility Premises (P) Ltd (2007) 4 scc 599– Shreejee Traco (I) Pvt Ltd v. Paperline International Inc. (2003) 9 scc 79– Shri Lal Mahal Ltd v. Progetto Grano SpA (supreme court, 3 July 2013 in

civil appeal no. 5085/2013)– Smita Conductors Ltd v. Euro Alloys Ltd (2001) 7 scc 728– S.N. Prasad v. Monnet Finance Ltd (2011) 1 scc 320– State of Goa v. Praveen Enterprises (2011) 3 arblr 209– State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd (2010) 4 scc 518– State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2008) 2 scc 660– Sukanya Holdings (Pvt) Ltd v. Jayesh H. Pandya (2003) 5 scc 531– Sumitomo Heavy Industries Ltd v. ONGC Ltd (1998) 1 scc 305– Sundaram Finance Ltd v. M.K. Kurian, air 2006 Mad 218 (db)– Sundaram Finance Ltd v. NEPC India Ltd (1999) 2 scc 479– Tata Industries Ltd v. Grasim Industries Ltd (2011) 3 bom cr 326– Travancore Devaswom Board v. Panchamy Pack (P) Ltd (2004) 13 scc 510– Union of India v. Master Construction (2011) 12 scc 349– Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 scc 470– Union of India v. Singh Builders Syndicate (2009) 4 scc 523– United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ajay Sinha (2008) 7 scc 454– Venture Global Engg. v. Satayam Computer Services Ltd (2008) 4 scc 190– Videocon Industries Ltd v. Union of India (2011) 6 scc 161– Vijaya Bank v. Maker Development Services Pvt Ltd (2001) 3 bomcr 652– Visa International Ltd v. Continental Resources (USA) Ltd (2009) 2 scc 55– Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd v. Ind Agro Synergy Ltd (2007) 3 arblr 502 (Mp)– Voltas Ltd v. Rolta India Ltd (2011) 113 bomlr 393– Wellington Associates Ltd v. Kirit Mehta (2000) 4 scc 272– Yashwitha Constructions (P) Ltd v. Simplex Concrete Piles India Ltd (2008)

4 andh lt 266– Yenepoya Minerals & Granites P Ltd v. Maharashtra Apex Corpn Ltd (2004)

2 arblr 47 (Kar)– Yograj Infrastructure Ltd v. Ssang Yong Engg & Construction Co. Ltd (2011)

9 scc 735– Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line NV (2003) scc 27

IrelanD

– Barnmore Demolition and Civil Engineering Ltd v. Alandale Logistics Ltd, et al. [2010] no 5910p

table of cases

xx intersentia

JaPan

– Hayakawa v. Aoki, Japanese supreme court, Judgment of 5 March 1958, Minshu vol. 12, no. 3, p. 381

– Kokusan Kinzoku Kogyo Co. Ltd v. Gurd Life Co., Japanese supreme court, Judgment of 15 July 1975, Minshu vol. 29, no. 6, p. 1061

– Nihon Kyoikusha v. Feld, Japanese supreme court, Judgment of 4 september 1997, Minshu vol. 51, no. 8, p. 3657

– Ohara v. Kawanishi, osaka High court, Judgment of 20 February 1974, Hanreijiho no. 746, p. 42

– Osaka Nyuseihin Co. Ltd v. Nagano Kanzume Kogyo Co. Ltd, Japanese supreme court, Judgment of 14 June 1958, Minshu vol. 12, no. 9, p. 1492

– Sumitomo Fudosan Systemconstruction Co. Ltd v. Kato, tokyo High court, Judgment of 9 october 1990, Kin’yu shojihanrei no. 863 p. 42.

Korea

– HIWOOD Inc. v. HIWOOD Inc. [Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 18.10.2012 (case no. 2010da10300)]

– Hun-Keun Yoo, Receiver of Eastern Sea Pulp Corp. (Reorganization Company) (Currently Moorim P & P Co. Ltd) v. Majestic Woochips Inc. [Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 26.02.2003 (case no. 2001da77840)]

– Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 09.12.1986 (case no. 86do51147)– Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 05.12.1995 (case no. 95da21868)– Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 23.06.2000 (case no. 98da55192)– Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 23.07.2000 (case no. 98da55192)– Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 26.02.2003 (case no.

2001da77840)– Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 25.06.2004 (case no. 2003da5634)– Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 14.10.2004 (case no.

2003da70249, 70256)– KOICA v. Hi-Net Trade Co. Ltd [Judgment of the seoul High court of

12.09.2007 (case no. 2006na107687]– KOICA v. Hi-Net Trade Co. Ltd [Judgment of the Korean supreme court of

24.06.2010 (case no. 2007da73918)]– Korea Heavy Industry and Construction Corp. v. Gold Star Cable & System

Corp. [Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 14.04.1992 (case no. 91da17146)]

– Kyphon SARL v. Taeyeon Medical Co., Ltd. [Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 15.03.2012 (case no. 2010da63133)]

– LG Electronics Inc. v. Daewoo Electronics Corp. [Judgment of the Korean supreme court of 19.01.2012 (case no. 2010da95390) (en banc)]

table of cases

intersentia xxi

– ruling of the Korean supreme court of 14.06.2007 (case no. 2006ma910)– Taeyeon Medical Co., Ltd v. Medtronic, Inc [Judgment of the Korean seoul

High court of 08.07.2010 (case no. 2009na22763)]

new ZealanD

– Methanex Motunui Ltd & Methanex Waitara Valley Ltd v. Joseph Spellman [2004] 1 nZlr 95 (nZca)

PaKIstan

– HUBCO v. WAPDA (2000) 16 Arbitration International 469– SGS v. Federation of Pakistan, scMr 1694

PHIlIPPInes

– ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corpn v. World Interactive Network Systems (WINS) Japan Co. Ltd [g.r. no. 169332, 11.02.2008]

– Allen v. Province of Tayabas [g.r. no. 12283, 25.07.1918]– Benguet Corpn v. Department of Environment and Natural Resources et

al. [g.r. no. 163101, 13.02.2008]– Chan Linte v. Law Union and Rock Insurance Co. Ltd [g.r. no. 16398,

14.12.1921]– Chang et al.  v. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation of London [g.r. no.

l-3567, 20.08.1907]– China Chang Jiang Energy Corporation (Philippines) v. Rosal Infrastructure

Builders [g.r. no. 125706, 30.09.1996]– Chung Fu Industries (Philippines) Inc. et al.  v. Court of Appeals et al.  [g.r.

no. 96283, 25.02.1992]– Cordoba v. Conde [G.R. No. 1125, 24.08.1903]– Eastboard Navigation Ltd v. Juan Ysmael and Co. Inc. [g.r. no. l-9090,

10.09.1957]– Fort Bonifacio Development Corpn v. Domingo [g.r. no. 180765, 27.02.2009]– Gammon Philippines, Inc. v. Metro Rail Transit Development Corpn [g.r. no.

144792, 31.01.2006]– Korea Technologies Co. Ltd v. Hon. Alberto A. Lerma et al. [g.r. no. 143581,

07.01.2008]– Philrock, Inc. v. CIAC [412 phil. 236, 2001]– Prudential Guarantee and Assurance Inc. v. Anscor Land Inc. [g.r. no.

177240, 08.09.2010]

table of cases

xxii intersentia

– Puentebella et al.  v. Negros Coal Co. Ltd et al.  [g.r. nos. 26216 & 26217, 06.03.1927]

– Wahl et al. v. Donaldson, Sims & Co. [g.r. no 1085, 16.05.1903]

sInGaPore

– AAY v. AAZ [2011] 1 slr 1093– ALC v. ALF [2010] sgHc 231– AZT v. AZV [2012] sgHc 116– Doshion Ltd v. Sembawang Engineers and Constructors Pte Ltd [2011] sgHc

46– Equinox Offshore Accommodation Ltd v. Richshore Marine Supplies Pte Ltd

[2010] sgHc 122– Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co. Ltd v. Aksa Far East Pte Ltd

[2012] sgHcr 2– Government of the Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine International Air

Terminals Co. Inc. [2007] 1 slr 278– Ho Wing On Christopher and others v. ECRC Land Pte Ltd (in liquidation)

[2006] sgca 25– Hyundai Engineering v. Sembawang Kimtrans [2001] 1 slr 739– John Holland v. Toyo Engineering Corpn (Japan) [2001] 2 slr 262– Kempinski Hotels SA v. PT Prima International Development [2011] sgHc

171– Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd v. Petroprod Ltd [2011] sgca 21– Lock Han Chng Jonathan v. Goh Jessiline [2008] 2 slr(r) 455– Ng Chin Siau v. How Kim Chuan [2007] 2 slr(r) 789– Pioneer Shipping v. BTP Tioxide Ltd (‘The Nema’) [1982] ac 724– Quarella SpA v. Scelta Marble Australia Pty Ltd [2012] sgHc 166– Tjong Very Sumito v. Antig Investments [2009] 4 slr(r) 732; [2009] sgca 41

sweDen

– Jilkén v. Ericsson, case no. t 2448-06, 19.11.2007 (nJa 2007)– Korsnäs AB v. AB Fortum Värme, case no. t 10321-06 (nJa 2010)– Profilgruppen v. KPMG, case no. t 1085-11 (www.arbitration.sccinstitute.

com/files/102/1023796/t%201085-11_eng.pdf#search=“KpMg”)

swItZerlanD

– A v. B, C, D (Federal supreme court judgment of 21.03.2011, case no. 4a_574/2010)

table of cases

intersentia xxiii

– A v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (Federal supreme court judgment of 9.1.2009, case no. 4a_460/2008 len/)

– AG v. Y (Federal supreme court judgment of 6.8.2012, case no. 4a_119/2012)– Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) v. Association Z

(Federal supreme court judgment of 22.12.2008, case no. 4a_392/2008/ech)– X v UCI, CONI & FCI (Federal supreme court judgment of 18.6.2012, case

no. 4a_488/2011)– X v. Y (Federal supreme court judgment of 20.2.2009, case no. 4a_600/2008)– X. Lda, Administradora de Insolvencia v. Y (Federal supreme court judgment

of 15.10.2012, case no. 4a_50/2012)

Usa

– Aerojet-General Corp. v. Am. Arbitration Ass’n, 478 F.2d 248 (9th cir. 1973)– Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.s. 36 (1974)– Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U.s. 265 (1994)– ANR Coal v. Cogentrix of N. Caro., Inc., 172 F.3d 493 (4th cir. 1999)– Armendariz v. Found Health PsychCare Sers., Inc., 6 p.3d 669 (cal. 2000)– Asoma Corp. v. M/F Faros D.C.N.Y. 2001 [2001 Wl 1588929, vacated c.a.2d,

2002, 53 Fed. appx. 581]– AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 475 U.s. 643 (1986)– AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 s.ct. 1740 (2011)– Availl, Inc. v. Ryder Systems, Inc., 110 F.3d 892 (2d cir. 1997)– Banc One Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 367 F.3d 426 (5th cir. 2004)– Bechtel do Brasil Construções Ltda v. UEG Araucária Ltda, 638 F.3d 150– Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mass., Inc. v. BCS Ins. Co., 671 F.3d 635 (7th cir.

2011)– Booth v. Mary Carter Paint Co., 202 so2d 8 (Fla dist ct app 1967)– Botello v. COI Telecom, LLC, 2010 U.s. dist. leXis 138572 (W.d. tex. dec.

30, 2010)– Bowen v. Amoco Pipeline Co., 254 F.3d 925 (10th cir. 2001)– BP Exploration Libya Ltd v. ExxonMobil Libya Ltd, 11–20547, 2012 Wl

3065317 (5th cir. 30.07.2012)– Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.s. 440 (2006)– Burton v. Bush, 614 F.2d 389 (4th cir. 1980)– Cabinetree of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Kraftmaid Cabinetry, Inc., 50 F.3d 388 (7th

cir. 1995)– Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co, 785 F. supp. 2d 394 (s.d.n.Y. 2011)– Citibank, NA v. Stok & Assocs., PA, 387 F. app’x 921 (11th cir. 2010)– Cole v. Burns Int’l Security Servs., 105 F.3d 1465 (d.c. cir. 1997)– Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 393 U.s. 145 (1968)

table of cases

xxiv intersentia

– Compania Panemena Maritima v. J.E. Hurley Lumber Co., 244 F.2d 286 (2d cir. 1957)

– Cone Mem’l Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.s. 1 (1983)– Consorcio Ecuatoriano de Telecomunicaciones SA v. JAS Forwarding (USA),

Inc., 685 F.3d 987 (11th cir. 2012)– Contec Corp. v. Remote Solution Co., 398 F.3d 205 (2d cir. 2005)– Cox v. Ocean View Hotel Corp., 533 F.3d 1114 (9th cir. 2008)– Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U.s. 213 (1985)– Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.s. 681 (1996)– EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.s. 279 (2002)– Emilio v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., 315 F. app’x 322, 324 (2d cir. 2009)– Erie R.R. Co. v. Thompkins, 304 U.s. 64, 78 (1938)– Fantastic Sams Franchise Corporation, v. FSRO Association Ltd., et al.,

683 F.3d 18 (1st cir. 2012)– Fidelity Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp., 386 F.3d 1306 (9th cir. 2004)– Figueiredo Ferraz e Engenharia de Projecto Ltda v. Republic of Peru, 2001 Wl

6188497 (2d cir. 14.12.2011)– First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.s. 938, 115 s.ct. 1920 (1995)– Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.s. 20 (1991)– Gonzalez v. West Suburban Imp., Inc., 411 F. supp. 2d 970 (n.d. iii 2006)– Gov’t of United Kingdom v. Boeing Co., 998 F.2d 68 (2d cir. 1993)– Green Tree Fin. Corp v. Bazzle, 539 U.s. 444 (2003)– Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.s. 79 (2000)– Gulf Guar. Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co, 304 F.3d 476 (5th cir. 2002)– Gulf Petro Trading Co. v. Nigerian Nat’l Petroleum Corp., 512 F.3d 742

(5th cir. 2008)– Halide Group, Inc. v. Hyosung Corp., F. supp. 2d 1, 2010 Wl 4456928 (e.d.

pa., 2010) (no. civ. a. 10-02392)– Hall Street Associates LLC v. Mattel Inc., 552 Us 576 (2008) (sup ct)– Hay Group, Inc. v. EBS Acquisition Corp., 360 F.3d 404 (3d cir. 2004)– Haynsworth v. The Corporation, 121 F.3d 956 (5th cir. 1997)– Hoeft v. MVL Group, 343 F.3d 57 (2003) (2d cir) Us– Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.s. 79 (2002)– In re California Title Ins. Antitrust Litig., 2011 U.s. dist. leXis 71621

(n.d. cal. 27.06.2011)– In re Kinoshita & Co., 287 F.2d 951 (2d cir. 1961)– In Vilches v. Travelers Co., 413 Fed. appx. 487 (3d cir. 09.02.2011)– Intercarbon Bermuda, Ltd v. Callex Trading & Transport Corp., 146 F.r.d. 64

(s.d.n.Y 1993)– Intergen NV v. Grina, 344 F.3d 134 (1st cir. 2003)– International Electric Corp. v. Bridas Sociedad Anonima Petrolera Industrial y

Commercial, 745 F. supp 172 (s.d.n.Y. 1990)

table of cases

intersentia xxv

– Iran Aircraft Indus. v. Avco Corp., 980 F.2d 141 (2d cir. 1992)– Island Territory of Curacao v. Solitron Devices, Inc., 356 F.supp. 1 (s.d.n.Y.),

aff’d, 489 F.2d 1313 (2d cir. 1973)– Itoman (USA), Inc. v. Daewoo Corp., 68 n.Y.2d 925, 510 n.Y.s.2d 74, 502

n.e.2d 989 (n.Y. 1986)– Ivax Corp. v. B. Braun of America, Inc., 286 F.3d 1309 (11th cir. 2002)– JLM Industries, Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, 387 F.3d 163 (2d cir. 2004)– John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.s. 543 (1964)– JPD, Inc. v. Chronimed Holdings, Inc., 539 F.3d 388 (6th cir. 2008)– Khan v. Parsons Global Servs. Ltd, 521 F.3d 421 (d.c. cir. 2008)– Klay v. United Healthgroup, 376 F.3d 1092 (11th cir. 2004)– Knepp v. Credit Acceptance Corp., 229 b.r. 821 (bankr. n.d. ala. 1999)– Konkar Maritime Enterprises v. Compagnie Belge d’Affretement, 668 F. supp.

267 (s.d.n.Y. 1987)– Kulukundis Shipping Co. v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 126 F.2d 978 (2d cir. 1942)– Life Receivables Trust v. Syndicate 102 at Lloyd’s of London, 549 F.3d 210

(2d cir. 2008)– Lloyds v. Lagstein, 607 F.3d 634 (9th cir. 2010)– Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. v. Broadspire Mgmt. Servs., 623 F.3d 476 (7th cir.

2010)– Lustfield v. Milne, 5 pa. d. & c. 5th 469 (pa. ct. com. pl. 2008)– M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., 87 F.3d 844 (6th cir. 1996)– M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.s. 1 (1972)– Manion v. Nagin, 392 F.3d 294 (8th cir. 2004)– Marchant v. Mead Morrison Mfg. Co., 252 n.Y. 284, 169 n.e. 386 (1929)– Marie v. Allied Home Mortgage Corp., 402 F.3d 1 (1st cir 2005)– Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, 115 s. ct. 1212 (1995)– McDonald v. City of West Branch, 466 U.s. 284 (1984)– Medal Knitwear, Inc. & Hee Soon Wi v. Ji Hoon Jung, JYP Entertainment Co.,

Ltd., Jin Young Park and Star M. Co. Ltd, F. supp. 2d 1, 2011 Wl 96522 (e.d.n.Y. 2011) (no. 10-cv-802 Fb clp)

– Medicine Shoppe International, Inc. v. Turner Investments, Inc., 614 F.3d 485 (8th cir. 2010)

– Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458 (9th cir. 1983)

– Mercury Telco Group, Inc. v. Empresa de Telecommunicaciones de Bogota, 670 F. supp. 2d 1350 (s.d. Fla. 2009)

– Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Hovey, 726 F.2d 1286 (8th cir. 1984)

– Metallgesellschaft AG v. M/V Capitan Constante, 790 F.2d 280 (2d cir. 1986)– Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, SA, 624 F.2d 411 (2d cir. 1980)– Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.s. 614 (1985)

table of cases

xxvi intersentia

– Monegasque de Reassurances SAM (Monde Re) v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F.3d 488 (2d cir. 2002)

– Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers, Inc., 128 F.3d 1456 (11th cir. 1997)– Morsey Constructors, LLC v. Burns & Roe Enter., Inc., 2008 Wl 3833588

(W.d. Ky. 13.08.2008)– NBC v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 165 F.3d 184 (2d cir. 1999)– Opalinski v. Robert Half Int’l, Inc., 2011 U.s. dist. leXis 115534 (d. n.J.

06.10.2011)– Ortho Pharma. Corp. v. Amgen, Inc., 882 F.2d 806 (3d cir. 1989)– Pacific Reins. Mgmt. Corp. v. Ohio Reins. Corp., 935 F.2d 1019 (9th cir. 1991)– Parsons & Whittemore Overseas Co. v. Société Générale de l’Industrie du

Papier (RAKTA), 508 F.2d 969 (2d cir. 1974)– Perry v. Thomas, 482 U.s. 483 (1987)– Pervel Indus., Inc. v. TM Wallcovering, Inc., 871 F.2d 7 (2d cir. 1989)– Prima Paint, Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Corp., 388 U.s. 395 (1967)– Pro Tech Indus., Inc. v. URS Corp., 377 F.3d 868 (8th cir. 2004)– Publicis Commun. v. True North Communs. Inc., 206 F.3d 725 (7th cir. 2000)– Reichman v. Creative Real Estate Consultants, 476 F. supp. 1276 (d.c.n.Y.

1979)– Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp., 638 F.3d 384 (2d cir. 2011)– Republic of Kazakhstan v. Biedermann Int’l, 168 F.3d 880 (5th cir. 1999)– Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Company, 937 F.2d 469 (9th cir.

1991)– Roadway Package Sys., Inc. v. Kayser, 257 F.3d 287 (3d cir. 2001)– Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.s. 477 (1989)– Roso-Lino Beverage Distrib. Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 749 F.2d 124, 125

(2d cir. 1984)– Sanders v. Forex Capital Markets, 2011 U.s. dist. leXis 137961 (s.d.n.Y.

29.11.2011)– Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.s. 506 (1974)– Shearson/American Express v. McMahon, 482 U.s. 220 (1987)– Shell Oil Co. v. CO2 Comm., Inc., 589 F.3d 1105 (10th cir. 2009)– Southland Corp. v. Keating, 465 U.s.1 (1984)– Showthemoney Check Cashers, Inc. v. Williams, 27 s.W. 3d 361 (ark. 2000)– Sperry Int’l Trade v. Government of Israel, 532 F. supp. 901 (s.d.n.Y. 1982)– Sphere Drake Ins. Ltd. v. All American Life Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 617 (7th cir.

2002)– Stanton v. Paine Webber Jackson & Curtis, 685 F. supp 1241 (s.d. Fla. 1988)– Stedor Enters., Ltd. v. Armtex, Inc., 947 F.2d 727 (4th cir. 1991)– STMicroelectronics, NV v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, 648 F.3d 68

(2d cir. 2011)– Stok & Associates, PA v. Citibank, NA, 387 Fed. appx. 921 (11th cir. 2010)

table of cases

intersentia xxvii

– Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 548 F.3d 85 (2d cir. 2008)– Stolt-Nielsen SA v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., 130 s. ct. 1758 (2010)– Sutter v. Oxford Health Plans LLC, 2011 U.s. dist. leXis 17123 (d.n.J.

22.02.2011)– Termorio SA ESP v. Electrificiadora del Atlantico SA ESP, 421 F. supp. 2d 87

(d.d.c. 2006)– Thomas v. Union Carbide Agri. Prods. Co., 473 U.s. 568 (1985)– Thompson v. Zavin, 607 F. supp. 780 (c.d. cal. 1984)– Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int’l., 265 F.3d 931 (9th cir. 2001)– Trade & Transport, Inc. v. Nat. Petro. Charterers, Inc., 931 F.2d 191 (2d. cir.

1991)– Triangle Constr. & Maint. Corp. v. Our V.I. Labor Union, 425 F.3d 938 (11th

cir. 2005)– Tristar Fin. Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Equicredit Corp., 97 F. app’x. 462 (5th cir.

2004)– United Steelworkers of Am. v. Amer. Mfg. Co., 264 F.2d 624 (6th cir. 1959)– Virginia Carolina Tools, Inc. v. Int’l Tool Supply, Inc., 984 F.2d 113 (4th cir.

1993)– Volt Info.Sciences, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 489 U.s. 468 (1989)– Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. NYC Transit Auth., 14 F. 3d. 818 (2d cir. 1994)– Wilko v. Swan, 346 Us 427 (1953)– Williams v. CIGNA Fin. Advisors Inc., 197 F.3d 752 (5th cir. 1999), cert denied

529 U.s. 1099 (2000)– Willoughby Roofing & Supply Co., Inc. v. Kajima Intl, Inc., 598 F. supp. 353

(n.d. ala. 1984)– Wisconsin Auto Title Loans, Inc. v. Jones, 714 n.W.2d 155 (Wisc. 2006)– Wood v. Penntex Res. LP., 2008 U.s. dist. leXis 50071 (s.d. tex. 27.06.2008)– Woodland Ltd. P’ship v. Wulff, 868 a.2d 860 (d.d.c. 2005)– Yasuda Fire & Marine Ins. Co. of Europe v. Cont. Cas. Co., 37 F.3d 345 (7th

cir. 1994)– Zephyros Maritime Agencies, Inc. v. Mexicana De Cobre, SA, 662 F. supp 892

(s.d.n.Y. 1987)

intersentia xxix

lIst of abbrevIatIons

a.2d atlantic reporter, second seriesaaa american arbitration associationac law reports, appeal cases (Third series)acica australian centre for international commercial arbitrationacM appellate court Mediationactsc australian capital territory supreme courtadndrc asia domain name dispute resolution centreadr alternative dispute resolutionadrlJ arbitration and dispute resolution law Journaladro alternative dispute resolution officeaFa arbitration Fairness actaFet agricultural Futures exchange of Thailandaff’d affirmedaFtc agricultural Futures trading commissionandhlt andhra law timesair all india reporterair-sc all india reporter – supreme courtall er all england reportsall er (comm) all england reports (commercial cases)all er (d) all england digestao arbitration officeap andhra pradeshapp. div. appellate divisionapplr arbitration, practice & procedure law reportsarblr arbitration law reports and reviewark. arkansasatF receuil des arrêts des tribunal Fédéral suisse

bankr. n.d. alaska United states bankruptcy court, district of alaskablr business law reportsblr2d business law reports, second seriesbom bombaybomcr bombay cases reporterbr bankruptcy reporter

list of abbreviations

xxx intersentia

btt board of trade of Thailandbus lr business law reports

ca court of appealc.a.2d california appellate reports, second seriescacv court of appeal. civil appeal.cal calcutta / calcutta High court / californiacaMca commercial arbitration and Mediation center for the americasccc civil and commercial codeccoic china chamber of commerceccp code of civil procedureccpit china council for the promotion of international tradec.d. cal central district of california, United states district courtcedr centre for effective dispute resolutionch law reports, chancery division (Third series)ciac construction industry arbitration commissionciarb chartered institute of arbitratorscietac china international economic and trade arbitration commissioncir circuitciv civilcJ code Judicaireclc ccH commercial law casesclr commonwealth law reportscMac china Maritime arbitration commissioncMpd conflict Management promotion divisioncomm commercialcomplJ company law Journalcon lr construction law reports (UK)cpc code of civil procedurectc central tax court

d denison & pearce’s crown cases reserveddb division benchd.c. cir. district of columbia circuitd.d.c. United states district court for the district of columbiad.n.J. United states district court new Jerseyd.c.n.Y United states district court for the district of new Yorkdel delhideQp department of environmental Quality promotion

list of abbreviations

intersentia xxxi

dip department of intellectual propertydlt delhi law times

ecJ european court of Justiceecr european court reportsed. edition; editore.d. pa. United states district court for the eastern district of pennsylvaniae.d.n.Y. eastern district new York, United states district courteU european UnioneWca england and Wales court of appealeWca (civ) england and Wales court of appeal (civil division)eWHc england and Wales High courteWHc (Qb) england and Wales High court (Queen’s bench division)

F.2d Federal reporter, second seriesF.3d Federal reporter, Third seriesFaa Federal arbitration actF. app’x Federal appendix: Federal appellate court opinions (not reported in F.3d) F.b. Full benchFdrc Financial dispute resolution centerff followingFla dist ct app Florida district court of appealFMcs Federal Mediation and conciliation serviceF.r.d. Federal rules decisionsF. supp. Federal supplementF. supp.2d Federal supplement, second series

g.r. general recordsguj lr gujarat law reporter

HKc Hong Kong casesHKec Hong Kong electronic casesHKFWsMc Hong Kong Family Welfare society Mediation centreHKiac Hong Kong international arbitration centreHKiarb Hong Kong institute of arbitratorsHKlrd Hong Kong law reports & digestHKMc Hong Kong Mediation centerHl House of lords

iaMa institute for arbitrators and Mediators australiaicc international chamber of commerce

list of abbreviations

xxxii intersentia

icdr international centre for dispute resolutioniclr incorporated council of law reporting (formerly Wlr (d))icsid international centre for the settlement of investment disputesilpr international litigation procedureJdr Judicial dispute resolutionJMHo Joint Mediation Helpline office

Kar KarnatakaKcab Korean commercial arbitration boardKopila Korea private international law associationKpi King prajadhipok’s institute

leadr lawyers engaged in alternative dispute resolutionled legal execution departmentlloyd’s rep lloyd’s law reportslrcHK law reform commission of Hong Konglse london school of economics

Ma MassachusettsMah lJ Maharashtra law JournalMiga convention establishing the Multilateral investment guarantee agencyMoc Ministry of commerceMoJ Ministry of JusticeMp Madhya pradesh High court

n. notenadrac national alternative dispute resolution advisory counciln.d. northern districtn.d. ala. northern district alabama, United states district courtn.d. cal northern district california, United states district courtn.d. ill northern district illinois, United states district courtn.e. north eastern reportern.e.2d north eastern reporter, second seriesngo non-governmental organisationnJa nytt Juridiskt arkivnlrc national labor relations commissionnMb national Mediation board

list of abbreviations

intersentia xxxiii

nsWca new south Wales court of appealnsWsc new south Wales supreme courtn.W. north Western reportern.W.2d north Western reporter, second seriesn.Y. new York reportsn.Y.2d new York reports, second seriesn.Y. app. division new York supreme court appellate division reportsn.Y. slip op new York reports official citationnYc new York convention on the recognition and enforcement of Foreign awards, 1958nZca new Zealand court of appeal reportsnZlr new Zealand law reports

oic office of insurance commissionoJ official Journal of the european UnionoJa office of the Judicial affairsonca ontario court of appealonsc ontario superior court of JusticeooJ office of the Judiciary

p. pagep.3d West’s pacific reporterpa. d. & c. pennsylvania district and county reportspdrci philippine dispute resolution center, inc.p&H punjab and Haryana pila private international law actprc people’s republic of china

Qb law reports, Queen’s bench (Third series)

raJ rajdhani law reporterrlpd rights and liberties protection departmentrt riigi teataja (official Journal of estonia)

scc supreme court cases, indiascMa singapore chamber of Maritime arbitrationscMr supreme court Monthly reviews.ct supreme court reporters.d.Fla southern district Florida, United states district courts.d.n.Y. southern district new York, United states district courts.d. tex. southern district texas, United states district courtset stock exchange of Thailandsgca singapore court of appeal (neutral citation)

list of abbreviations

xxxiv intersentia

sgHc singapore High court (neutral citation)si statutory instrumentssiac singapore international arbitration centresiarb singapore institute of arbitratorsslr singapore law reportsslr(r) singapore law reports (reissue)sMc singapore Mediation centreso.2d southern reporter, second seriesspc supreme people’s court of the people’s republic of chinasupp. supplementsupp. arblr arbitration law reporter supplementsup.ct supreme court reporters.W.3d south Western reporter Third 

tcc tax court of canadatFeX Thailand Futures exchange

UKHl United Kingdom House of lordsUKpc United Kingdom privy councilUKsc United Kingdom supreme courtUncitral Model law Uncitral Model law on international commercial arbitrationUncitral United nations commission on international trade lawUs United states of americaU.s. United states supreme court reportsUscs United states conciliation serviceU.s. dist. United states district court 

vol. volumevsc victoria supreme court (1998-)

W.d. Ky Western district Kentucky, United states district courtW.d. tex. Western district texas, United states district courtWis. WisconsinWl Westlaw transcriptsWlr Weekly law reportsWlr (d) incorporated council of law reporting

Zpo Zivilprozessordnung

intersentia xxxv

lIst of aUtHors

aDr MecHanIsMs anD tHeIr IncorPoratIon Into Global JUstIce In tHe twenty-fIrst centUry: soMe concePts anD trenDs

prof. dr dr h.c. silvia baronasilvia barona is professor of procedural law at the University of valencia, spain. she is a member of the bar and a leading writer on adr. Her works in this field, both on civil and commercial and on criminal matters, are numerous and have had a high impact in spain and abroad. professor barona was president of the court of arbitration and Mediation of valencia and is a well-known arbitrator and a registered mediator. she has been a member of several official commissions on the restructuration of the judicial system in spain and holds the great cross of saint raimundo de peñafor awarded by the King of spain.

prof. dr carlos esplugues, llM (Harvard), Msc (edinburgh)carlos esplugues is professor of private international law at the University of valencia, spain. He holds Masters degrees from edinburgh University and Harvard law school. He is admitted to the bar and serves regularly as an arbitrator. He is also a registered mediator. professor esplugues is a leading spanish scholar in the field of private international law, international trade law and international dispute resolution. He has been a member of several official commissions on international private law, both in spain and in brussels, and lectures regularly in europe, latin america and asia. professor esplugues is president of the spanish association of international law professors.

aUstralIa

prof. david bamfordin 2013 david bamford returned to teaching and research after filling the role of dean at Flinders law school, south australia for five years. His research interests include the workings of the civil and criminal justice system, and the interaction between law and politics. commissioned research includes government consultancies that evaluate different aspects of the justice system including restorative justice, community justice and therapeutic court

list of authors

xxxvi intersentia

programmes. recent publications include a book on civil litigation and book chapters on expert witnesses, adr, and developments in australian legal education. professor bamford has been a visiting professor at universities in canada, United Kingdom, Finland, indonesia and south africa.

cHIna

prof. dr jur. Yuanshi buYuanshi bu is director of the chair of international economic law with special focus on east asia at the University of Freiburg, germany. she holds Masters degrees from nanjing University (2001) and Harvard (2004) and a phd from the University of bern (2003). Her main research interests include german and chinese civil and economic law, international and chinese investment law, protection of intellectual property rights and technology transfer in east asia, and arbitration in the people’s republic of china. professor bu was admitted to the new York state bar in october 2005, and is also a member of the board of the german-chinese Jurists’ association and an expert of the alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

enGlanD anD wales

prof. neil andrewsneil andrews is professor of civil Justice and private law and the University of cambridge. His main teaching interests are civil justice and procedure (including court litigation, mediation and arbitration), and contract law (both english and transnational). He was called to the english bar in 1981 and became a bencher of Middle temple in 2007. He is a member of the american law institute and a praesidium Member of the international association of procedural law. His main recent works include Andrews on Civil Processes (intersentia 2013; 2 vols: vol 1, court proceedings; vol 2, arbitration and Mediation) and Contract Law (cambridge University press 2011).

HonG KonG

gavin denton, bbUs, llb, llM (peking), Fciarbgavin denton is the head of arbitration chambers Hong Kong, china’s first set of chambers dedicated to international arbitration. gavin is admitted to practice in Hong Kong, england and australia, and holds business and law degrees from australia as well as a Masters in chinese law from peking University. He specialises in commercial dispute resolution, with significant experience as both counsel and arbitrator in international arbitrations across the asia-pacific

list of authors

intersentia xxxvii

region. He is a Fellow of the chartered institute of arbitrators and the Hong Kong institute of arbitrators and is vice chairman of icc australia’s arbitration committee.

dr Fan Kun, phd (geneva), llM (nYU, paris Xii)Fan Kun is assistant professor at the Faculty of law, chinese University of Hong Kong, and a visiting scholar at the Harvard-Yenching institute (2012–13). professor Fan is author of the book Arbitration in China: A Legal and Cultural Analysis (Hart publishing 2013) and has published extensively, with pieces in leading law journals such as the Harvard negotiation law review, the cardozo Journal of conflict resolution, the Yearbook of private international law, and the Journal of international arbitration. professor Fan is a former deputy counsel of the icc international court of arbitration and now practices as a senior consultant for arbitration asia. she is called to the new York bar, an accredited Mediator and a domain names panellist of the Hong Kong international arbitration centre.

InDIa

darius J. Khambata, llM (Harvard), scdarius J. Khambata practises before the bombay High court and the supreme court of india. He is currently the advocate general of Maharashtra and was previously the additional solicitor general of india, both distinguished public offices. His practice encompasses commercial and corporate law, constitutional and administrative law, securities law and arbitration. appearing for the government, he has successfully defended challenges to the constitutionality of the provisions of several statutes, both central and state. He has also appeared in several significant domestic and international commercial arbitrations. He is a vice-president of the london court of international arbitration.

aditya n. Mehta, llb (lse)aditya n. Mehta practises as a counsel before the bombay High court and various tribunals, where he undertakes a range of corporate, commercial and constitutional litigation. He has also appeared in domestic and international commercial arbitrations. aditya has significant experience in company law, securities law and tax law matters. prior to transferring to the bar, aditya practised as a commercial solicitor with linklaters for five years in their london, singapore and Hong Kong offices. aditya read law at the london school of economics and is also a qualified chartered accountant.

naira J. Jejeebhoy, llM (columbia)naira Jejeebhoy read law at government law college, Mumbai and then earned an llM from columbia law school, where she graduated as a Harlan Fiske

list of authors

xxxviii intersentia

stone scholar. naira practises as an advocate in india and is also qualified to practice in the state of new York. she primarily focuses on commercial and civil dispute resolution. naira has appeared in ad hoc and institutional arbitrations with an indian or UK seat. she has also appeared before the supreme court of india and other indian courts for the determination of issues arising under the indian arbitration and conciliation act 1996.

InDonesIa

dr Marcella e. simandjuntak, sH, cn, MHumvalentinus surotob. resti nurhayati, sH, MHumdr Marcella e. simandjuntak, Mr valentius suroto and Ms b. resti nurhayati are senior lecturers at the Faculty of law, soegijapranata catholic University (scU), semarang, central Java, indonesia. dr simandjuntak is currently the Head of the center for Women’s studies at the scU research institute. she lectures on criminal law, the criminal justice system and criminology. valentius suroto and b. resti nurhayati are both lecturers in the civil law department. recently, they have all been actively involved in the inter-religious dialogue and peace building initiative program funded by the United board for Higher christian education in asia (UbcHea). one of the programs is to develop a dispute resolution curriculum for law faculty. They are also involved in conducting a multi-year study on intercultural dialogue in encountering social conflict with reconciliation and peace building initiative.

IrelanD

prof. dr guillermo palao Morenoguillermo palao Moreno obtained his phd (with honours) at the University of valencia where he is a full professor of private international law and international commercial law. professor palao Moreno is a Fellow of the european law institute, an associate Member of the international academy of comparative law, as well as a correspondent academic of the spanish royal academy of Jurisprudence and law. He is also a member of the arbitration and Mediation centers of the World intellectual property organization (Wipo) and of the chamber of commerce of valencia. He has published extensively and his research has been focused on international contracts and tort law, international company law, international labour law, international litigation and adr, as well as international intellectual property and it law. professor palao Moreno also has a long teaching experience, at graduate and postgraduate levels, both in european and latin american universities.

list of authors

intersentia xxxix

JaPan

prof. dr Masaaki HagaMasaaki Haga is a professor of law at Keio law school (tokyo, Japan). prior to that, he served as a research assistant, assistant professor, associate professor and professor at the Faculty of law of Meiji University (tokyo, Japan). He has obtained an llb, llM and lld from the Universities of Meiji, Waseda and Keio respectively. He has also held posts as a visiting research fellow at the University of regensburg (germany) in 1995–96 (daad scholarship) and in 2003–05 (Humboldt research Fellowship). His main research is international civil procedural law.

Korea

prof. gyooho lee, Jsd (Washington), llM (Washington and Yonsei), llb (Yonsei)gyooho lee is a professor of law at chung-ang University school of law in seoul, republic of Korea. He has specialised in civil procedure, arbitration, private international law, intellectual property law, and cultural property law. He obtained an llb and an llM from Yonsei University (seoul, republic of Korea), an llM from the University of Washington (seattle, Wa, Usa) and a Jsd from Washington University (st. louis, Mo, Usa). He has also served as a visiting researcher at georgetown University law center (Washington, dc, Usa). currently, he is serving as a vice president of the Korean civil procedure association, an arbitrator of the Korean commercial arbitration board, and a member of the international law association’s committee on intellectual property and private international law. He is the author of several books including Failures of American Civil Justice in International Perspective, co-authored with James r. Maxeiner and armin Weber (cambridge University press 2011).

PHIlIPPInes

donemark J.l. calimondonemark J.l. calimon is a partner at the litigation and dispute resolution group of Quisumbing torres law offices, a member firm of baker & McKenzie international.  He is a trustee, an officer and an accredited arbitrator of the philippine dispute resolution center, inc. (pdrci); an accredited arbitrator of the philippine intellectual property office; a Member of the chartered institute of arbitrators, east asia branch (philippine chapter); and a trustee and officer of the philippine institute of arbitrators. He has acted/acts as counsel or arbitrator in several commercial arbitrations, including arbitrations conducted under the

list of authors

xl intersentia

arbitration rules of the pdrci and of the international chamber of commerce (icc), and ad hoc arbitration under the Uncitral arbitration rules. He regularly lectures and writes on commercial arbitration. He obtained his law degree at the University of the philippines in 2000 and was admitted to the philippine bar in 2001.

sInGaPore

assoc. prof. Joel lee, llM (Harvard)Joel lee is vice-dean and an associate professor at the Faculty of law, national University of singapore. a graduate of Harvard law school, he runs the faculty’s negotiation and Mediation Workshops. professor lee is a consultant with cMpartners (Usa) and the training director of and a principal mediator with the singapore Mediation centre. He is also an adjudicator with the Financial industry disputes resolution centre, a member of the adr advisory council of the subordinate courts of singapore and a member of the international Mediation institute’s independent standards commission and intercultural taskforce. professor lee has taught overseas at the University of copenhagen (denmark), University of law, economics and science of aix-Marseille (aix-en-provence, France) and anglia law school (UK). He is the co-editor and co-author of An Asian Perspective on Mediation (academy publishing 2009) and the general editor for the asian Journal on Mediation. in 2011, professor lee received the outstanding educator award, which is the national University of singapore’s highest teaching award.

tHaIlanD

suparb vongkiatkachorn, llM (Harvard), llb (ramkhamhaeng)suparb vongkiatkachorn holds an llM from Harvard law school. He was formerly a co-managing partner of the bangkok office of Freshfields bruckhaus deringer, advising on a wide range of matters, including investment in Thailand, the acquisition of Thai companies, securities and loan transactions, derivatives and other isda agreements, corporate formation and joint ventures, dispute resolution, property, and tax matters. He has also been the deputy secretary general of the agricultural Futures trading commission of Thailand (aFtc), supervising/assisting in the drafting of futures trading regulations relating to conciliation/arbitration of the aFtc, the agricultural Futures exchange of Thailand, and the Thailand Futures exchange. He is currently a listed arbitrator of the securities and exchange commission of Thailand.

list of authors

intersentia xli

Usa: arbItratIon

prof. george a. bermanngeorge bermann is professor of law at columbia law school, new York, and director of the center for international commercial and investment arbitration. He teaches and writes in, among other fields, transnational litigation and arbitration, commercial arbitration, investment law and arbitration and european Union law. He has been an active international arbitrator for 30 years, serving in both institutional and ad hoc arbitration. He is director of the american arbitration association, and a member of the roster of leading arbitral institutions, including icdr. in addition, professor bermann is the chief reporter of the american law institute’s ‘restatement of the U.s. law of international commercial arbitration’, co-author (with emmanuel gaillard) of the Uncitral guide to the new York convention, and editor-in-chief of the american review of international arbitration.

Usa: MeDIatIon

shanin spectershanin specter is a co-founder and partner at Kline & specter, p.c. in philadelphia, pennsylvania. Mr specter graduated with honors in political science from Haverford college and earned his law degree at the University of pennsylvania law school, where he is currently a lecturer at law. He earned his Masters in law with First class Honors at cambridge University. Mr specter served as a member of a hearing committee on the disciplinary board of the supreme court of pennsylvania from 1989 to 1994 and as a chairman from 1994 to 1995. He was a member of the civil procedural rules committee of the supreme court of pennsylvania from 1995 to 2001. Mr specter concentrates his law practice on catastrophic personal injury litigation.

Jason l. pearlmanJason l. pearlman is an associate attorney at Kline & specter, p.c in philadelphia, pennsylvania. Mr pearlman earned a bachelor’s degree in economics at the pennsylvania state University and a law degree with honors at new York law school. He earned a llM in trial advocacy at the temple University James e. beasley school of law. Mr pearlman concentrates his law practice on catastrophic personal injury litigation.