Consolidation Of Arbitration Agreement- September 15, 2021
The tribunal then had to consider Hartford`s refusal to pursue the selection of an arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the arbitration clause of contract 2718, i.e., there was no arbitration panel to which the tribunal could immediately refer the issue of consolidation. Id. at *9-*10. Wausau requested that the court enforce the provisions of the arbitration clause of contract 2718, which was the only one before that court, and the court recognized that it had the power to compel the parties to commence arbitration proceedings in accordance with the terms of their agreement, 9 U.S.C§ 4. The tribunal also found that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers because “the contracts were identical and the defenses were probably identical.” The arbitral provision in the PPE gave the proceeding broad authority and stated: “[i]n the arbitrator . . . proceed with their attribution from the point of view of practical business practices and fairness, and not from a strictly legal point of view. The Tribunal found that “these cases were appropriate for a consolidated practice of investigation and enforcement as an effective, timely and inexpensive alternative to litigation.”  Ibid., in Articles 22(1)(x) and 22(6). The LCIA rules recognize that arbitration proceedings may be consolidated where courts have been formed, but only if those tribunals are identical. In Canada, there have been some disputes over whether “the parties” means “all parties” (in which case, consolidation will only be possible with the agreement of all parties) or only “one” or “some” of the parties to multiple arbitrations (in this case, consolidation will be possible without the agreement of all parties). As a result, Canadian courts have been subject to some disagreement as to whether the agreement of all parties is a prerequisite for judicial consolidation in the provinces where this language is used. “If the words used are so ambiguous, the court should interpret them in a way that corresponds to commercial reality and avoids commercial absurdity.” References to other agreements in a comprehensive contractual clause are generally not intended to include other agreements or their terms in the agreement between the parties; The latter remains as it is.
The consolidation of agreements and the consolidation of disputes by the resulting full contractual clauses is likely to run counter to the true intention of the parties and create chaos. While it can never be wrong to ask the parties to be more careful in the design of the contract, the misinterpretation of the terms of the “global agreement” for consolidation purposes should and can be put an end to. The ICC Arbitration Rules contain similar provisions for consolidation. In particular, it is stated that the ICC Court of Justice may consolidate two pending arbitration proceedings in accordance with ICC rules if the parties have consented to consolidation; all claims in arbitration proceedings are invoked under the same arbitration agreement; or where claims are asserted in arbitration proceedings under more than one arbitration agreement, arbitrations are conducted between the same parties, disputes relating to the same legal relationship arise, and the ICC Court of Justice finds that the arbitration arrangements are compatible.  A number of national courts around the world have also ordered consolidation without the agreement of the parties. . . .