Search

With the introduction in 2021 of Article 190a of the Private International Law Act (PILA) and the simultaneous amendment of Article 191 PILA, which now refers to a new Article 119a of the Federal Supreme Court Act, the extraordinary remedy of “revision” of decisions rendered in international arbitrations seated in Switzerland has been put on a statutory footing. Before that, revision was recognised and governed only by the case law of the Swiss Supreme Court. There are many procedural aspects to revision proceedings that are not specifically stipulated in the law but derive from the practice of the Supreme Court. Other procedural aspects are governed by provisions of the Federal Supreme Court Act which may not at first glance appear applicable to revision proceedings against arbitral awards but which the Court nonetheless applies to such proceedings. Finally, practices developed by the Supreme Court before the entry into force of the new statutory regime to a large extent continue to apply under the new regime. The present article summarizes these procedural aspects of revision proceedings and is helpful to those handling revision proceedings before the Swiss Supreme Court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While it is controversial what principles an arbitral tribunal should apply when making a cost award under normal circumstances, it is widely accepted that an arbitral tribunal may take the parties' procedural conduct into account and the most commonly applied institutional rules all confer broad discretion on the arbitral tribunal to consider procedural misconduct when deciding about costs. Procedural misconduct can occur in different forms and facets. The most regularly reported forms include frivolous or inflated claims, meritless requests, unsolicited submissions, dilatory or obstructive behavior and failure to produce documents. Since misconduct contravenes the duty to arbitrate in good faith and the goal to conduct the arbitration in a cost and time efficient manner, procedural misconduct of a certain gravity should not go unnoticed. Arbitrators should under appropriate circumstances indemnify the opponent and/or sanction the party engaged in misconduct for wasteful behavior by rendering an adverse cost award. They can do so either in an interim or partial award or at the end of the proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For years parties to international arbitrations have used the discovery mechanism of § 1782 to seek the U.S. courts' assistance in obtaining evidence from persons in the United States. Over time, a circuit split developed on whether § 1782 extended to private arbitral tribunals. This summer, the United States Supreme Court resolved the circuit split, holding that the scope of § 1782 did not encompass private international arbitration, but leaving the door open for arbitral tribunals imbued with some level of governmental authority. After providing a summary of the Supreme Court's decision, the article focuses on the implications of this new precedent and its impact on participants to arbitration proceedings seated outside the U.S. with a focus on arbitrations seated in Switzerland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (the “Rules”) were adopted in 2004 and revised a first time in 2012. In 2021, the Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution (SCAI) in charge of the Rules and the Swiss Arbitration Association (ASA) joined forces to set up the Swiss Arbitration Centre, replacing SCAI. This triggered a new revision of the Rules, which entered into force on 1 June 2021². It was followed by a practice note in March 2023 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]