Court Intervention in Arbitration Process for Enforcement of Arbitrato

Question: Discuss about theCourt Intervention in Arbitration Process for Enforcement of Arbitrators. Answer: An arbitration is basically the non-judicial process of settling a dispute wherein an arbitrator (an independent third party) makes a binding decision which carters for every person need. The arbitration process is suitable because it is inclined to address the needs of the parties, the arbitrators can be selected for their expertise, its confidentiality, cheaper than a court proceeding, there exist restricted grounds of appeal and the awards of arbitration are enforceable by the court implying they are done formally. There are various situations where court intervenes before the reference to arbitration, during the arbitration process of a petroleum-related dispute and after the arbitration process. Before the beginning of the arbitration the court can intervene in two circumstances: to stay on legal proceedings, court can indirectly direct an arbitration after the application of a party to an arbitration agreement; interim protection measures where the courts own power to in relati on to interim orders purposely for maintaining the status quo not known and during arbitration; and if the party requesting of the legal proceedings goes to court in the manner outlined under rule 2 of the Arbitration Rules of 1997, this is according the Kenyan laws (Shapiro, 1968). The court can intervene in extending the powers of the court (Park, 1997). The section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 bestows power upon the court to give interim injunctive relief to offer protection of an arbitration. This section has critical jurisdictional restrictions and limits any appeal rights to the case in which the judge himself has offered an authority permission to appeal. In the case of SABMiller Africa v East African Breweries Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1564 the question was in the parties initially had an agreement extended by the power of the court as provided under section 44 and in case they had, was that extension permissible or not? An application of section 44 what witnessed in the case of Petroleum Investment Company Ltd v Kantupan Holdings Co Ltd, October 2001 considered by Toulson J an unreported ruling which significantly gives the discretionary and the jurisdictional elements in granting relief. The next situation is when there a need to dismiss the claim for non-compliance. The section 41(3) of the Arbitration Act 1996 states that "If the tribunal is satisfied that there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay on the part of the claimant in pursuing his claim and that the delay (a) gives rise, or is likely to give rise, to a substantial risk that it is not possible to have a fair resolution of the issues in that claim, or (b) has caused, or is likely to cause, serious prejudice to the respondent, the tribunal may make an award dismissing the claim." the first challenge against an award under section 41(3) was witnessed in TAG Wealth Management v West [2008] EWHC 1466 (Comm) classified under the sections 69 and 68 of the 1996 Act. It is also the power of the court to awards interest. Mr Justice Beatson took into consideration the power of the court in the case of Gater Assets Ltd v NAK Naftogaz Ukrainiy (No 2) [2008] EWHC 1108 (Comm) in giving a judgment to enforce a New York Convention Award, for an award of interest for the duration between the award date and date of payment in situations where the arbitrators have not taken an initiative to do so (Park, 1997). The court is a subject to giving orders of protection during the Arbitration. Expect in cases where the parties have agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal can ask for a party order (any of the parties) to avail an interim protection measure to the extent to which the tribunal may see it necessary in relation to the issue in dispute. For instance, in IPCO(Nigeria) LTD v Nigerian National Petroleum Corp [2017] UKSC 16, enforcement issue arose. The UK Supreme Court offered significant guidance concerning when security may or may not be ordered in the proceedings to implement a New York Convention award as outlined in AA 1996. It laid up the order of the Court of Appeal (CA) directing the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp (NNPC) to raise $100 million security relevant to the Nigerian Arbitrary award in favour of IPCO (Nigeria). The SC ruled that the court powers to subject conditions on orders were not significant and appropriate in this case. The enforcement conditions were undertaken under the New York Convention outlined codes which disregard the security requirement in situations of the presence of an arguable challenge under article V (Park, 1988). The court can intervene in Assisting to gather evidence for the Arbitration use. The has the power to pick evidence for use during the tribunal hearing if either of the parties request. As per Section (44)(2)(e) of Arbitration Act of 1996, the court has the permission to offer an interim injunction in the help of the arbitration agreement. In a case of urgency, the court may come in to preserve evidence or assets as (s44 (3)). The court has the power to decide on the challenge of an attributor brought through court. The parties are allowed to decide on how to challenge an arbitral tribunal under the section 24 of the AA 1996. in P v V and others [2017] EWHC 148 (Comm), the court rejected that the application for disclosure of documents. In P v V and others [2017] EWHC 194 (Comm). Popplewell J rejected the application to disregard the arbitrators appointed by the two parties. He discovered that the tribunal had not appropriately assigned its decision-making roles to the tribunal secretary to get his perception on procedural applications. Popplewell realized that the evidence was inadequate in establishing a shortcoming to carry out proceedings. No evidence of significant injustice existed as outlined by section 24 of the AA 1996. In some other cases, the court can still approve the removal of an arbitrator under section 24 AA 1996 in case the party- nominated arbitrator lacks the qualifications required as in Toniscar Ltd and other v Allianz Insurance and others [2017] EWHC (Comm). Arbitration form one of the cheapest and comfortable means of solving disputes with less privacy breach. in relation to petroleum laws, court intervention makes the whole process much better assisting in legal adherence and protection of the arbitrators. (Lew, 2008) References Shapiro, D. L. (1968). Some Thoughts on Intervention Before Courts, Agencies, and Arbitrators. Harvard Law Review, 721-772. Lew, J. D. (2008). Does national court involvement undermine the international arbitration process. Am. U. Int'l L. Rev., 24, 489. Park, W. W. (1997). Determining Arbitral Jurisdiction: Allocation of Tasks Between Courts and Arbitrators. Am. Rev. Int'l Arb., 8, 133-367. Park, W. W. (1988). National law and commercial justice: Safeguarding procedural integrity in international arbitration. Tul. L. Rev., 63, 647.