KYIV ARBITRATION DAYS 2016: THINK BIG! The Confidence Complex - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

kyiv arbitration days 2016 think big

KYIV ARBITRATION DAYS 2016: THINK BIG! The Confidence Complex - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Oct 14, 2022 231 likes •326 views

KYIV ARBITRATION DAYS 2016: THINK BIG! The Confidence Complex Closed Lists or Freedom of Choice? Brussels / Dsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley /

slide-1

SLIDE 1

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

KYIV ARBITRATION DAYS 2016: THINK BIG!

The Confidence Complex

Closed Lists or Freedom of Choice?

slide-2

SLIDE 2

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

2

The Confidence Complex 2

Confidence in whom?

the arbitrator?
the tribunal?
the institution?
the arbitration process?

slide-3

SLIDE 3

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

3

Closed Lists -vs- Freedom of Choice

The best way to avoid incidents of moral hazard is “… to forbid, or at least rigorously police, the practice of unilateral appointments…” “The only decent solution … is thus that any arbitrator, no matter the size of the tribunal, should be chosen jointly or selected by a neutral body.” “… an institutional requirement that appointments be made from a pre-existing list of qualified arbitrators. …such a restricted list may have undeniable advantages…”

slide-4

SLIDE 4

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

4

The call for closed lists

Unilateral appointments are wrong:

Appointing a nominee to help win the case is wrong No evidence that three heads are better than one Irrational for parties to have more confidence in arbitrator appointed for a special skill ‘Cultural’ appointments exacerbate moral hazard and are unnecessary Unanimity in awards is less likely to be achieved

slide-5

SLIDE 5

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

5

The institutions

slide-6

SLIDE 6

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

6

Freedom of choice

To arbitrate?
To choose system of law?
To choose seat of arbitration?
To choose the/its arbitrator

slide-7

SLIDE 7

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

7

Against closed lists’ arguments

Perpetuates the very moral hazard argued against
Limits breadth of experienced arbitrators rather than broadening it
Wrongly assumes all participants appointments are ‘hired-guns’
Ignores party autonomy – bedrock of arbitration’s credibility
Wrongly assumes closed list arbitrators will not be biased or poor judges
Wrongly assumes institutions’ knowledge is greater than their sum
Increases likelihood of repeat appointments due to limited pool
Disparaging of less-established institutions
Asserts that unilateral appointments increase dissenting judgements – but are

dissenting judgements such a bad thing?

slide-8

SLIDE 8

Brussels / Düsseldorf / Hamburg / London / Manchester / Milan / Munich / Paris / Rome / Shanghai / Silicon Valley / fieldfisher.com

8

Simon Sloane

Partner - London E: Simon.Sloane@fieldfisher.com T: +44 (0)20 7861 4934 M: +44 (0)7341 566 854