1. See Sanders, , “Unity and Diversity in the Adoption of the Model Law” (1995) 11 Arb.Int. 1s.Google Scholar

2. Steyn, “England's Response to the UNCITRAL Model Law of Arbitration” (1994) 10 Arb.Int. 1.

3. The Model Law has been enacted in Scotland: Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990, s.66 and Sched.7.

4. A Report on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1989), p.34, para.lO8(7). For a discussion of the Committee's report see Reymond, “The Report of the Mustill Committee: A Foreign View” (1990) 106 L.Q.R. 431.

5. Steyn, , op. cit.supra n.2.Google Scholar

6. The date appointed by the Secretary of State under s.109 by SI 1996/3146.

7. For reasons considered in infra Part I.B ss.85–87 (which deal with domestic arbitration agreements) have not been brought into force.

8. To describe an arbitration which involves a foreign element as “international” is potentially misleading. It has been pointed out that, except in the case of an arbitration between two States or other international legal persons conducted in accordance with public international law, all arbitrations are national, in the sense they are subjected to national legal systems: Mann, “Lex Facit Arbitrum”, in Sanders, (Ed.), International Arbitration: Liber Amicorum for Martin Domke (1967), p.157, at p.159.Google ScholarNotwithstanding such observations, the epithet “international” is convenient and is routinely employed to distinguish domestic cases from cases with a foreign element.

9. Some legal systems limit the court's general powers in cases where the parties to an arbitration have little or no connection with the seat of arbitration. For example, following the reforms of 1985. Art.1717.4 of the Belgian Judicial Code provides as follows: “The Belgian court can take cognisance of an application to set aside only if at least one of the parties to the dispute decided in the arbitral award is either a physical person having Belgian nationality or residing in Belgium; or a legal person formed in Belgium or having a branch or some seat of operation there.”

10. Arbitration Act 1950, s.4.

11. Arbitration Act 1975, s.l.

12. S.3(6).

13. S.I.

14. S.2(a).

15. P.66 (para.320).

16. Idem, p.67 (para.326).

17. Ss.85–87. The 1996 Act extends the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 to consumer arbitration agreements: ss.89–91. These provisions apply equally to domestic and international agreements.

18. Report, supra, n.15 at p.67 (para.326).Google Scholar

19. See Lord Hacking's comments during the committee stage: Hansard, H.L., Vol.569, CWH cols.23–24 (28 Feb. 1996)Google Scholar.

20. The Times, 22 July 1996.

21. Formerly Art.7 EEC.

22. Cases 262/82 and 26/83 Luisi and Carbone v. Ministero del Tesoro [1984] E.C.R. 377; Case 186/87 Cowan v. Tresor Public [1989] E.C.R. 195; Case C-45/93 Commission v. Spain [1994] E.C.R. 1–911; Case C-384/93 Alpine Investments BV [1995] E.C.R. 1–1141.

23. Lexis transcript.

24. S.87(l).

25. S.86(2).

26. Art.II.

27. A Consultation Document on Commencement of the Arbitration Act 1996 (1996).

28. See SI 1996/3146.

29. See supra Part I.B.

30. S.9 reads as follows:

“(1) A party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought (whether by way of claim or counterclaim) in respect of a matter which under the agreement is to be referred to arbitration may (upon notice to the other parties to the proceedings) apply to the court in which the proceedings have been brought to stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter.

(2) An application may be made notwithstanding that the matter is to be referred to arbitration only after the exhaustion of other dispute resolution procedures.

(3) An application may not be made by a person before taking the appropriate procedural step (if any) to acknowledge the legal proceedings against him or after he has taken any step in those proceedings to answer the substantive claim.

(4) On an application under this section the court shall grant a stay unless satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed.

(5) If the court refuses to stay the legal proceedings, any provision that an award is a condition precedent to the bringing of legal proceedings in respect of any matter is of no effect in relation to those proceedings.”

31. S.2(2)(a).

32. Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v. Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd [1992] Q.B. 656 (CA).

33. [1993] A.C. 334.

34. Idem, p.354.

35. Reymond, (1993) 109 L.Q.R. 337,339 (referring to Van den Berg, The New York Convention of 1958 (1981), p.129).Google Scholar

36. Arbitration Act 1975, s.l(l).

37. The relevant words were inserted into the Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Act 1924 by s.8 of the Arbitration (Foreign Awards) Act 1930. The phrase was repeated in s.4(2) of the Arbitration Act 1950 when the legislation was consolidated and, although s.4(2) of the 1950 Act was repealed by the 1975 Act, the same phrase was included in the text of s.l.

38. See Kerr, LJ in SL Sethia Liners Ltd v. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd [1985] 1 W.L.R. 1398,1401Google Scholar.

39. [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 265.

40. The Helmsing, John C. [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 290.Google Scholar

41. See, in particular, the speech of Lord Mustill in Channel Tunnel, supra n.33, at p.356.Google Scholar

42. Reymond, , op. cit. supra n.35, at p.340.Google Scholar

43. For a discussion of the ways in which a respondent may slow down an arbitration see Harris, “Abuse of the Arbitration Process—Delaying Tactics and Disruptions” (1992) 9 J.Int.Arb. (2) 87.

44. SA Coppie Lavalin NV v. Ken-Ren Chemicals & Fertilizers Lid [1994] 2 W.L.R. 631, 652.

45. S.9(l).

46. S. 7(1).

47. Hansard, H.L., Vol.568, col.780 (18 Feb. 1996).Google Scholar

48. This view is supported by the DAC's Report on the Arbitration Bill (1996), p.14 (para.33).Google Scholar

49. [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 225.

50. S.5(2)(a).

51. S.5(3).

52. S.5(2)(b),(c) and (4).

53. Berg, Van den, op. cit. supra n.35, at p.196.Google Scholar

54. Idem, p.179. See also Mann (1987) 3 Arb.Int. 171.

55. Report on the Arbitration Bill (1996), p. 14 (para.34).

56. Art.7(2) of the Model Law extends neither to an oral agreement evidenced in writing nor to a written clause orally or tacitly accepted by the parties.

57. If the place of performance of X's obligation was Italy, the Italian court would, subject to the arbitration clause, be entitled to assume jurisdiction under Art.5(l) of the Brussels Convention.

58. This was the approach adopted in The Heidberg [1994] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 287.

59. Art.26.

60. Case C-190/89 Marc Rich & Co.AG v. Societa Italiana Impianti, The Atlantic Emperor [1991] E.C.R. 1–3855.

61. Compare e.g. Briggs, (1991) 11 Y.B.E.L. 527. 529 and Cheshire and North. Private International Law (12th edn, 1992). p.436.Google Scholar

62. For further discussion see Hill. The Law Relating to International Commercial Disputes (1994) pp.63–66 (para.3·3·4·5) and 553–554 (para.20·6·1).Google Scholar

63. As defined by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, s.l(3).

64. Redfern, and Hunter, . Law and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, 1991), p.72.Google Scholar

65. James Miller & Partners Ltd v. Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd [1970] A.C. 583.

66. Staughton, LJ in Irish Shipping Ltd v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. Ltd [1991] 2 Q.B. 206.220.Google Scholar

67. S.27 as interpreted in International Tank & Pipe SA K v. Kuwait Aviation Fuelling Co. KSC [1975] Q.B. 224.

68. S.12 as interpreted in C`hannel Tunnel, supra n.33.

69. Naviera Amazonica Peruana SA v. Compania Internacional de Seguros del Peru [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 116.

70. Union of India v. McDonnell Douglas Inc. [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 48.

71. Naviera Amazonica, supra n.69.

72. Why anyone should choose to do this is not clear: it would be much simpler to choose country Y as the seat but to conduct the hearings in country X: Redfern and Hunter, op. cit. supra n.64, at pp.93–94.

73. See, in particular. Kerr, LJ in Naviera Amazonica, supra n.69, at p.120.Google Scholar

74. See Holzmann, and Neuhaus, . A Guide to the UNC1TRA L Model Law of International Commercial Arbitration: Legislative History and Commentary (1989), pp.35–36.Google Scholar

75. S.3(a).

76. Even after the Second Reading in the House of Lords the Departmental Advisory Committee had not yet come round to the general principle that all arbitrations conducted in England should be subject to the provisions of Part I: Report on the Arbitration Bill (1996). pp.11–12 (paras.23–25) and 74 (para.357).

77. S.4(l) and Sched.l. The following mandatory provisions are listed in Sched.l: ss.9–13, 24.26(1), 28–29,31–33.37(2), 40,43.56.60,66–68 and 70–75.

78. The following provisions in Part I either apply “unless the parties otherwise agree” (or “unless otherwise agreed by the parties” or “subject to the right of the parties to agree”) or state that “the parties are free to agree” a particular matter ss.7–8,14–18,20–23,25,26(2). 27,30,34–36,37(1), 38–39,41–42,44–45,47–55,57–58,61–65, 69,76–79.

79. [1994] 2 W.L.R. 631. This case has been extensively discussed: Andrews [1994] C.L.J. 470; Beechey [1994] A.D.R.L.J. 242: Branson (1994) 10 Arb.Int. 313; Davenport (1994) 10 Arb.Int. 303: Hill [1995] L.M.C.L.Q. 19; Reymond (1994) 110 L.Q.R. 501.

80. Under the 1996 Act the court no longer has the power to make orders for security for costs (s.44); the tribunal may, however, order a claimant to provide security for the costs of the arbitration (s.38(3)).

81. Although Lord Mustill was in the minority in deciding that the court should not make an order for security for costs, there was unanimous support for the approach which was advocated.

82. Lord Mustill at [1994] 2 W.L.R. 631.641.

83. [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 46.

84. S.4(l)andSched.l.

85. Saville J in Union of India, supra n.70, at p.51.

86. S.4(5).

87. [1993] A.C. 334.

88. Idem. p.359.

89. Ss.9–11.

90. S.66. Nothing in s.66 affects the recognition or enforcement of an award under other statutory provisions, in particular under Part III of the Act: s.66(4).

91. S.44(2).

92. These provisions are implemented in England by Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. s.25.

93. Where the substantive proceedings are being conducted in a non-contracting State the powers of the court are more limited: Mercedes-Benz AG v. Leiduck [1996] 1 A.C. 284. The current state of the law is a cause of increasing exasperation among commentators. See. in particular. Collins (1996) 112 L.Q.R. 8.

94. S.2(3).

95. [1993] A.C. 334.368.

96. Naviera Amazonica. supra n.69; Channel Tunnel, supra n.32.

97. [1970] A.C. 583.

98. See Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws (12th edn, 1993), pp.576–579; Hill. op. cit. supra n.62. at pp.473–475 (para.17.1): Thomas, “Proper Law of Arbitration Agreements” [1984] L.M.C.L.Q. 304.

99. Hamlyn & Co. v. Talisker Distillery [1894] A.C. 202; Deutsche Schachtbau, infra n.121.

100. [1993] Q.B. 701.

101. Ss.12.13.50,79and80.

102. [1975] Q.B. 224.

103. S.4(l)and Sched.l.

104. The relevant legislation includes the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984: S.13(4).

105. S.I. For further discussion see Dicey and Morris, op. cit. supra n.98, at pp.184–189; Hill, op. cit. supra n.62, at pp.449–453 (para.5.1).

106. See infra Part III.C.

107. Nova (Jersey) Knit Ltd v. Kammgarn Spinnerei [1977] 1 W.L.R. 713.

108. Norske Atlas Insurance Co. Ltd v. London General Insurance Co. Ltd (1927) 28 Ll.L. Rep. 104; Union Nationale des Coopératives Agricoles de Céréales v. Robert Catterall & Co. Ltd [1959] 2 Q.B. 44. See also Mann, op. cit. supra n.8, at p.167; Thomas, “Commercial Arbitration—Justice According to Law” (1983) 2 C J.Q. 166; Jaffey, “Arbitration of Commercial Contracts: the Law to be Applied by the Arbitrators”, in Perrott and Pogany (Eds), Current Problems in International Trade Law (1987), pp.129–151.

109. See e.g. Art.1496 of the French New Code of Civil Procedure and Art.lO54(2) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

110. Czarnikow v. Roth, Schmidt & Co. [1922] 2 K.B. 478 is normally cited as authority for the orthodox position.

111. See, in particular, Robert Goff LJ in Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd v. Yuval Insurance Co. Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 357 and Lloyd LJ in Home and Overseas Insurance Co. Ltd v. Mentor Insurance Co. (UK) Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R. 153.

112. Some significance has been attached to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Deutsche Schachtbau, infra n.121, a case concerned with the enforcement of a Swiss award. The relevance of this decision in any context other than the enforcement of foreign awards has been doubted: Mustill, “The New Lex Mercatoria: The First Twenty-Five Years” (1988) 4 Arb. Int. 86,107.

113. S.46(2).

114. This may be subject to mandatory rules. See infra Pan 1II.C.5.

115. Orion Compania Espanola de Seguros v. Belfort Maatschappij voor Algemene Verzekgringeen [1962] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 257.

116. See the discussion of the House of Lords in Compagnie d'Armement Maritime SA v. Compagnie Tunisienne de Navigation SA [1971] A.C. 572.

117. S.46(3).

118. As in the contracts relating to the Channel Tunnel project. See Redfern and Hunter, op. cit. supra n.64, at p.l 17; Rubino-Sammartano, “The Channel Tunnel and the Tronc Commun Doctrine” (1993) 10 J. Int. Arb. (3) 59.

119. In many continental countries arbitration by reference to principles of equity or fairness is often referred to as amiable composition or arbitration ex aequo et bono. See Rubino-Sammartano, “Amiable Compositeur (Joint Mandate to Settle) and Ex Bono et Aequo (Discretional Authority to Mitigate Strict Law)” (1992) 9 J. Int. Arb. (1) 5.

120. For a discussion of how arbitrators are likely to exercise the sort of discretion conferred by s.46(3) see Craig, Park and Paulsson, International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration (2nd edn, 1990), pp.287–292.

121. Deutsche Schachtbau-und Tiefbohrgesellschaft mb H v.R'As al-Khaimah National Co. [1990] 1 A.C. 295.

122. Arbitration Act 1975, s.5(3).

123. [1990] 1 A.C. 295,316.

124. Craig, Park and Paulsson. op. cit. supra n.120. at p.300.

125. Ibid.

126. Holzmann and Neuhaus. op. cit. supra n.74, at p.768.

127. See the DAC's Report on the Arbitration Bill (1996). p.50 (para.225).

128. Art.34 (recourse against the award) limits the grounds on which an award may be set aside to the grounds on which enforcement of an award may be refused under Art.V of the New York Convention.

129. S.69.

130. S.68(2)(b).

131. S.69(I).

132. S.4(l)and Sched.l.

133. See Mayer. “Mandatory Rules of Law in International Arbitration” (1986) 2 Arb. Int. 274; Hochstrasser. “Choice of Law and ‘Foreign’ Mandatory Rules” (1994) 11J. Int. Arb. (1) 57.

134. S.66(3)(b). This provision is concerned only with cases where England is the seat of arbitration; it does not apply to the enforcement of foreign awards, which fall within Part III of the 1996 Act.

135. S.68(2)(g).

136. Art.V(2).

137. Lew. Applicable Law in International Commercial Arbitration (1978). p.537.

138. Malta is one State which, although it ratified the Geneva Convention, has not become a party to the New York Convention: see the DAC's Report on the Arbitration Bill (1996). p.71 (para.346).

139. As defined by Arbitration Act 1950, s.35(l).

140. S.99.

141. The relationship between the 1996 Act and the equivalent provisions of the 1975 Act is as follows: s.lOl(l) = s.3(2); S.101(2) and (3) = s.3(l); s.102 = s.4; s.103 = s.5: s.104 = s.6.

142. S.I 01(1).

143. See Dicey and Morris, op. cit. supra n.98, at pp.622–630; Hill, op. cit. supra n.62, at pp.529–544 (para.20.2); Thomas. “International Commercial Arbitration Agreements and the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards—A Commentary on the Arbitration Act 1975” [1981] L.M.C.L.Q. 17.30–39.

144. S.102. Where a document is in a foreign language an official translation must also be provided: s. 102(2). For the purposes of Part III of the 1996 Act. “arbitration agreement” is defined as “an arbitration agreement in writing (including an agreement contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams)”: S.103(2). The definition in s.5 is relevant only to Part I of the 1996 Act.

145. S.103.

146. [1992] 1 A.C. 562. For criticism of the decision see Davidson (1992) 41 l.C.L.Q. 637: Mann (1992) 108 L.Q.R. 6: Reymond (1992) 108 L.Q.R. 1: Thomas (1992) 11 CJ.Q. 352.

147. The House of Lords decided, however, that because England had been the seat of arbitration the English court retained its supervisory jurisdiction.

148. ]! A.C. 562.594.

149. S.103(2)(f).

150. S.103(2)(b).

151. S.9.

152. S.2.

153. S.4.

154. S.46.

155. Ss.53 and 100(2)(b).