Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Power of Remission: Unanswered Questions

Power of Remission: Unanswered Questions The power of remission under Article 34(4) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law often rides on a thin line between arbitral autonomy and curial intervention. This is exemplified at various stages of its exercise including the grounds for remission, adjudication by arbitrators independent of court directions and enquiry upon resumption of setting aside proceedings. While remitting, courts seek to look into ‘curability’ of defects over the impact on other parts of the award, which may lead the enquiry beyond the scope of Article 34 (4). The power of arbitrators to accept fresh evidence often clashes with the scope of remission. The extent of court intervention upon resumption is bridled by independence of arbitrators, especially when the modified award has altered the grounds of setting aside proceedings under Article 34. An analysis of Indian and Singaporean judicial trend helps understand the practical nuances of remission. While both jurisdictions are open to remission, they differ with respect to extent of arbitral autonomy. Courts are yet to conclusively define curable defects vis-à-vis partial remission, scope of modification of awards and the extent of interference upon resumption. This article seeks to identify and address such issues in the application of Article 34(4). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asian International Arbitration Journal Kluwer Law International

Power of Remission: Unanswered Questions

Aparna, N.
Asian International Arbitration Journal , Volume 17 (2): 14 – Oct 1, 2021
Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/kluwer-law-international/power-of-remission-unanswered-questions-14eJFR9Aqt

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Kluwer Law International
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands
ISSN
1574-3330
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The power of remission under Article 34(4) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law often rides on a thin line between arbitral autonomy and curial intervention. This is exemplified at various stages of its exercise including the grounds for remission, adjudication by arbitrators independent of court directions and enquiry upon resumption of setting aside proceedings. While remitting, courts seek to look into ‘curability’ of defects over the impact on other parts of the award, which may lead the enquiry beyond the scope of Article 34 (4). The power of arbitrators to accept fresh evidence often clashes with the scope of remission. The extent of court intervention upon resumption is bridled by independence of arbitrators, especially when the modified award has altered the grounds of setting aside proceedings under Article 34. An analysis of Indian and Singaporean judicial trend helps understand the practical nuances of remission. While both jurisdictions are open to remission, they differ with respect to extent of arbitral autonomy. Courts are yet to conclusively define curable defects vis-à-vis partial remission, scope of modification of awards and the extent of interference upon resumption. This article seeks to identify and address such issues in the application of Article 34(4).

Journal

Asian International Arbitration Journal – Kluwer Law International

Published: Oct 1, 2021

There are no references for this article.