The parties may nominate a sole arbitrator, but in the absence of any nomination a sole arbitrator is to be appointed by the Court under Article 2.2 “within as short a time as possible”. Therefore, in situations where an Answer is not submitted, or an Answer is submitted or a request for additional time is filed but fails to address the issue of nomination of the co-arbitrator, the Rules allow for the arbitration to go forward with the respondent’s co-arbitrator being nominated by the Court.Because it is not uncommon for a respondent to miss the 30-day deadline, for example if it is unrepresented, unfamiliar with the Rules, or a large corporation or a State and the Request has not timely reached the relevant decision-maker,Indeed, if it is not granted the option of an arbitrator late nomination, the defaulting respondent would arguably lose one of the most significant advantages of the recourse to international arbitration, in particular if the other party retains it. In addition, the Court has the power to appoint a sole arbitrator as the arbitral tribunal notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the arbitration agreement. Under Article 12(4) of the 2012 ICC Rules, in the event that the parties have agreed upon a three-member tribunal, the claimant proceeds with the nomination of its co-arbitrator in the Request, and the respondent nominates its co-arbitrator in the Answer which it must file within 30 days of receipt of the Request, pursuant to Article 5(1) subparagraph e) of the Rules.
If the Court does not accept the proposal made, or if the National Committee or Group fails to make the proposal requested within the time limit fixed by the Court, the Court may repeat its request, request a proposal from another …
Within thirty (30) days after their confirmation, the first two arbitrators shall nominate … Under Article 12(4) of the 2012 ICC Rules, in the event that the parties have agreed upon a three-member tribunal, the claimant proceeds with the nomination of its co-arbitrator in the Request, and the respondent nominates its co-arbitrator in the Answer which it must file within 30 days of receipt of the Request, pursuant to Article 5(1) subparagraph e) of the Rules. To date approximately 100 individuals have submitted their completed schedules to ICC Hong Kong. In a worst-case scenario for the defaulting respondent, some jurisdictions may enforce an arbitration agreement providing for the non-defaulting party’s nomination of the two co-arbitrators, which is to say the majority of the tribunal, which will in turn choose the President.Against this backdrop, one rightfully expect the ICC Secretariat to remain flexible as to the possibility of an arbitrator late nomination and to allow extensions of time rather than request that the ICC Court immediately appoints the co-arbitrator pursuant to 12(4) of the Rules, in particular because the Court also prefers the co-arbitrators to be selected by the parties.Indeed, it is clear that the provisions relating to Court’s appointment of the co-arbitrator at Article 12(4) of the Rules were intended to prevent dilatory tactics and obstruction of the arbitral process where a respondent deliberately fails to comply with the requirements of Article 5(1) of the Rules rather than prevent this party’s arbitrator late nomination if, in good faith, it failed to submit its Answer or to nominate its co-arbitrator in its Answer or in its request for additional time pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Rules.The arbitration resources on this website are brought to you by The latest revision came into effect on 1 March 2020. Together they represent a diverse range of backgrounds and views, which assists in fulfilling their objective of proposing appropriate people for the role in question.ICC Hong Kong is keen to ensure that it considers all qualified Hong Kong arbitration and ADR practitioners during the proposal process. The 2012 amendment was strongly urged by the ICC Hong Kong group in recognition of the deep pool of suitably qualified arbitrators in Hong Kong’s arbitration … Earlier in 2013, the Hong Kong arbitration committee requested various stakeholders in the Hong Kong arbitration community to circulate to their members a schedule of relevant experience, which the latter may voluntarily send to the ICC Hong Kong arbitration committee.