Procedural Order in Case 13856

Procedural Order in Case 15219

Procedural Order in Case 15634

While the ICC Arbitration Rules expressly allow arbitral tribunals to order interim and conservatory measures, they remain silent on the exercise of this power. The reported cases illustrate three contrasting approaches to the question. In two of the cases an order was sought to preserve the status quo in the context of share transfers, while the third case concerned a request for a bank guarantee to secure the amount in dispute. This latter request was considered to go beyond the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction as it related to the performance of a future award. While the arbitral tribunals in the other two cases both assumed jurisdiction to entertain the parties’ requests, they came to different conclusions on the merits of the requests. One, in a long and carefully argued procedural order, found the request to be in accordance with customary conditions for ordering interim relief and unaffected by prior applications for similar interim relief in state courts, while the other doubted that the relief sought was attainable and genuinely urgent or that there was a real threat of harm. In both cases, insistence was placed on the provisional nature of the decisions, justifying the form in which they were made.

Readers are reminded that a procedural order is a decision made by a particular arbitral tribunal in the exercise of its duties under the ICC Arbitration Rules in light of the circumstances of the case. Unlike awards, procedural orders are not subject to scrutiny by the ICC International Court of Arbitration.

For the purpose of publication, the procedural decisions reproduced here have been redacted so as to remove names of parties and other details not indispensable for their intelligibility. The decisions are reproduced in their original language. The footnotes form part of the original texts, unless otherwise stated, but have been renumbered in a continuous sequence.