Types of Arbitration
Arbitration, a popular form of alternative dispute resolution, is a flexible and adaptable process. As a result, it can be classified in several ways depending on the criteria used. Here are the most common types of arbitration:
1. Ad Hoc vs. Institutional Arbitration
This is one of the most fundamental distinctions and relates to how the arbitration process is administered.
Ad Hoc Arbitration: In this type, the parties manage the arbitration process themselves without the assistance of a specific arbitral institution. They agree on their own rules, procedures, and timelines, and handle all the administrative aspects, such as appointing arbitrators, scheduling hearings, and managing fees.
Pros: It offers maximum flexibility and can be more cost-effective as there are no administrative fees from an institution.
Cons: It can be challenging if one of the parties is uncooperative, as there is no institution to enforce procedural deadlines. It places a heavier burden on the parties and the arbitrator to manage the proceedings.
Institutional Arbitration: This is when an established arbitral institution (like the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), or the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC)) administers the arbitration. The institution provides a set of pre-established rules and a structured framework for the entire process, from the appointment of arbitrators to the scrutiny of the final award.
Pros: It provides a predictable and structured process, which is especially beneficial in complex or international disputes. The institution can help with the appointment of arbitrators and offers a mechanism to handle uncooperative parties.
Cons: It can be more expensive due to the administrative fees charged by the institution. The parties have less flexibility and control over the specific procedures.
2. Domestic vs. International Arbitration
This classification is based on the nationality of the parties and the location of the arbitration.
Domestic Arbitration: The arbitration is considered domestic when both parties are from the same country and the dispute is governed by the national law of that country. The arbitration is conducted under the national arbitration law (e.g., the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in India) and the seat of arbitration is within that country.
International Commercial Arbitration (ICA): This applies when at least one of the parties is a foreign national, a foreign body corporate, or a foreign government, and the dispute relates to a commercial relationship. The arbitration may be held in any country, and the laws governing the procedure and the substance of the dispute can be different. This type of arbitration is often influenced by international treaties like the New York Convention, which facilitates the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.
3. Voluntary vs. Compulsory Arbitration
This distinction is based on whether the parties' participation is by choice or mandated by law.
Voluntary Arbitration: The parties willingly agree to submit their dispute to arbitration, either through an arbitration clause in a contract (pre-dispute) or a separate agreement after the dispute has arisen (post-dispute). The arbitrator's decision is legally binding on the parties. This is the most common form of arbitration in commercial disputes.
Compulsory Arbitration: This occurs when a statute, regulation, or court procedure requires parties to submit their dispute to arbitration. It is often non-binding, meaning that if a party is unhappy with the award, they can still request a trial de novo in a court. This is less common in commercial law but can be found in some specific areas like labor disputes or consumer contracts.
4. Other Types
Binding vs. Non-Binding Arbitration: This refers to the enforceability of the arbitrator's award. In binding arbitration, the decision is final and legally enforceable. In non-binding arbitration, the decision is merely advisory, and the parties can choose whether to accept it or proceed to court.
Fast-Track Arbitration: This is a streamlined and expedited process designed to resolve disputes quickly. It often involves fewer hearings, limited discovery, and strict deadlines for submissions and the final award. It is ideal for smaller claims or where a quick resolution is a priority.
Med-Arb: This is a hybrid process that combines mediation and arbitration. The process begins with a neutral third party acting as a mediator to help the parties reach a voluntary settlement. If mediation fails, the same person can, with the parties' consent, switch roles and act as an arbitrator to issue a binding award.
Statutory Arbitration: This refers to arbitration that is mandated by a specific law or statute for certain types of disputes. For instance, in India, some disputes under certain laws (like the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006) may be subject to a specific arbitration mechanism.
What is Ad Hoc Arbitration?
Ad hoc arbitration is a form of dispute resolution where the parties involved in a dispute manage the entire arbitration process themselves. This means they do not rely on an established arbitral institution (like the ICC, LCIA, or SIAC) to administer the proceedings.
The term "ad hoc" comes from the Latin phrase meaning "for this purpose," highlighting that the arbitration is specifically tailored to the particular dispute at hand. In essence, the parties and the arbitrator(s) are responsible for setting up and running the arbitration from start to finish.
Key Characteristics
Party Autonomy and Flexibility: This is the most significant feature. The parties have the freedom to design the entire process, including the number of arbitrators, their qualifications, the rules of procedure, the language of the proceedings, and the location (seat) of the arbitration.
No Institutional Oversight: Unlike institutional arbitration, there is no third-party administrative body to provide rules, a list of arbitrators, or a mechanism to handle procedural issues. The parties must agree on all these matters.
Cost-Effective (in theory): Ad hoc arbitration can be cheaper because it avoids the administrative fees charged by arbitral institutions, which can be substantial, especially for high-value disputes.
Requires Cooperation: For ad hoc arbitration to be successful, the parties must be cooperative. If one party becomes uncooperative on procedural matters—such as appointing an arbitrator, agreeing on a timeline, or sharing documents—the process can be derailed, leading to delays and potential court intervention.
Reliance on National Law: In the absence of an agreement between the parties on a specific procedure, the arbitration will be governed by the national arbitration law of the country where the seat of arbitration is located.
How it Works
Arbitration Agreement: The parties' contract contains an ad hoc arbitration clause. This clause specifies that any disputes will be resolved by arbitration but does not name a specific institution.
Initiating Arbitration: When a dispute arises, one party initiates the arbitration by sending a notice to the other party, proposing a procedure for appointing an arbitrator and conducting the proceedings.
Appointment of Arbitrator(s): The parties must agree on the arbitrator(s). If they cannot, they may have to resort to a mechanism provided in their arbitration agreement or, in its absence, petition a court to appoint one.
Procedural Rules: The parties can either draft their own procedural rules or adopt a well-known set of non-institutional rules, such as the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, to guide the process.
Administrative Matters: The parties and the tribunal handle all administrative tasks, including scheduling hearings, managing communications, and arranging for payment of the arbitrator's fees.
Advantages and Disadvantages
| Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|
| Flexibility: Parties can customize the process to suit their specific needs and the nature of the dispute. | Lack of Structure: The absence of a formal framework can lead to procedural disputes and delays if the parties are uncooperative. |
| Cost-Effective: Avoids institutional administrative fees, potentially making it cheaper. | Risk of Delays: Disagreements over procedural matters can stall the proceedings, sometimes requiring court intervention to get the process back on track. |
| Speed: With full cooperation, the process can be faster than institutional arbitration, as there is less bureaucracy. | No Administrative Support: The parties and the tribunal are responsible for all administrative tasks, which can be burdensome. |
| Confidentiality: Generally considered more private, as there is no institutional record of the proceedings. | No Scrutiny of Awards: Unlike some institutional arbitrations, there is no formal review of the award by an institution, which can increase the risk of technical errors. |
Export to Sheets
In summary, ad hoc arbitration is an excellent choice for parties who trust each other to cooperate, have a simple dispute, or possess the legal expertise to manage the process themselves. However, for complex international disputes or situations where a breakdown in trust is likely, institutional arbitration is often the more secure and reliable option.
RELATED Blog
0 comments