Arbitration in Nepal

Arbitration is the submission of a disputed matter to an impartial person (the arbitrator) for decision. Arbitration is typically an out-of-court method for resolving a dispute. The arbitrator controls the process, will listen to both sides and make a decision. Like a trial, only one side will prevail. Unlike a trial, appeal rights are limited.

The arbitration method consists of the selection of an impartial third party called an arbitrator that will hear and decide on the dispute. In the case of AMF v. Brunswick the ruling was that the parties were required to seek arbitration for their dispute.

Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration are all forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that are alternatives that organizations use to avoid litigation in court.  According to Valenti Law, negotiation and mediation are forms of non-binding ADR, while arbitration is a binding ADR (2011).  Since arbitration is a binding ADR, the arbitrator’s decisions are legally binding and cannot be challenged by either party in the arbitration.  “There are limited grounds for challenging the decision” (Valenti Law, 2011).

Arbitration is a method to submit a resolution in an arbitral, rather than a judicial forum. For non-labor issues, arbitration can be a less expensive solution. One example is The Home Owners ' Warranty program. A program which aimed to resolve disputes between homeowners and builders. The program was designed between the Home Owners ' Warranty programs of the National Association of Home Builders. This program started in 1973 as a method of formally resolving disputes through arbitration. The program provided a warranty program, using mediation, and arbitration to resolve differences. Before the warranty program was created, the National Association of Home Builders came to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for advice and assistance on dealing with homeowner disputes. Over the years, the program has expanded across the country through the Magnuson-Moss Bill, assisting the Federal Trade Commission on issuing rules on warranty’s and guaranties. The arbitration occurs while looking at the evidence of a dispute objectively for the best solutions (Barrett, 1985, p. 32).

Since November 2015, after Justice Marks vacated the RSDCs previous decision, the Nationals have attempted to compel MASN to return to arbitration before the RSDC. The Nationals claimed that a footnote in the Justice’ decision meant that MASN needed to submit to arbitration if the Nationals just changed their lawyers. On the other hand, MASN felt that the sides should agree to submit this case before a different arbitral body and thereby avoid the appeals process. Failing this, MASN wanted its appeal to be heard before a second arbitration case would be heard before the RSDC.

The requisite credentials of an arbitrator are integrity, impartiality, and a simple requirement to maintain a professional competence that conveys the appearance of violating the prohibition of ex parte communications. Ex parte communication is of primary concern to the arbitration process; as such, the arbitrator should take every precautionary measure, within reason, to abide by the general guidelines, the arbitrations proceedings, and the involved parties. It is appropriate for the arbitrator to respond accordingly to the needs of the parties and make every reasonable effort

After carefully considering the situation in both plaintiff (Eunice) and defendant (RFYL), arbitration should be an effective Alternative Dispute Resolution in

Step 2: Parties are given seven days to study the list, cross-off unacceptable names, and rank remaining names

In evaluating the legality of an arbitration clause, the court examines the nature of the provision as it relates to both irrevocable statutory rights and private agreements between the employer and employee. To invalidate an arbitration provision on the basis of

One of the foundations of arbitration is that awards rendered are final and not subject to appeal before the courts. In this respect, Article 5 of the UNCITRAL Model Law provides for minimal intervention, and says, “In matters governed by this Law, no court shall intervene except where so provided in this Law“. As a result, the grounds upon which a court may set aside an award or refuse to recognize and enforce the same are limited. Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provide the restrictive grounds for such relief.

Despite the fact, that the idea behind the procedural public policy concerns only arbitration proceedings itself, still the concept has to be scrutinized. Reference to the arbitral proceeding makes is understandable that procedural public policy deducts from the principle of due process . Though, there exist affirmation whether procedural public policy overlaps with the Article 1 of the New York Convention or whether this constitutes more than any breach of due process should not be a breach of public policy. According to the authors point of view, it has not sense to restrict the due process only to cases, such as lack of proper notification or lack of arbitrators’ qualification. Failure to present facts of the should not automatically form a breach of due process and also breach of procedural public policy.

In this article it talks about arbitration and how it should be handled. The reasons for this argument started with the fact

With all of these acts and statutes being passed, it seemed as though arbitration was the way to go. But as more and more agreements to arbitrate future disputes were executed, other nonarbitral forms of alternative dispute resolution such as mediation and neutral fact-finding became common.

Arbitration is legal technique used to resolve any disputes outside of the courts. Arbitration allows for speedy and cheap resolution of any disputes, the parties involved in a dispute agree to appoint a third person (arbitrator) who will hear their testimonies, and look into the evidence they provide. The arbitrator's decision cannot be challenged in a law court as it is considered final and the parties involved have to accept the decision (Brams & Merrill, 1986). There are only very limited circumstances where the decision of an arbitrator can be challenged, and this is mostly if there can be proof from one of the parties showing that the arbitrator was biased in their decision or ruling. The chosen arbitrator will be an experienced person in the area of the dispute.

Firstly, the choice of law applicable to the substance of the dispute which the parties have made can be either express or implied and if such choice took place the arbitrators have to apply it. Without any indications concerning choice of applicable law, an arbitral tribunal has to determine such law through the searching of proper