Refusal to review the merits of a manifestly inadmissible petition to set aside two procedural orders
04 October 2016
Author: Christopher Boog
In a French-language decision dated 20 September 2016 and published on 4 October 2016, the Swiss Supreme Court, in simplified proceedings and without hearing the defendant or the arbitral tribunal, refused to review the merits of a manifestly inadmissible petition to set aside two procedural orders issued by the tribunal.
The petition to set aside the two procedural orders was the second challenge brought by the respondent in ad hoc arbitration proceedings seated in Geneva. In the first petition to set aside a jurisdictional award, the Supreme Court overturned the jurisdictional award for failure to comply with a contractually agreed mandatory pre-arbitral dispute resolution procedure. It ordered a stay of proceedings in order for the parties to conduct the contractually agreed conciliation (Decision 142 III 296). The second challenge was brought against procedural orders ordering the arbitration proceedings to resume following the stay and the ensuing unsuccessful conciliation attempt.
This decision is a new example of the Supreme Court's efficiency and effectiveness in cases where a challenge is manifestly inadmissible, and aims at disrupting or unnecessarily delaying the arbitration. This stance should further discourage unmeritorious applications to set aside arbitral awards in Switzerland. (Decision 4A_524/2016.)
Published in Practical Law Arbitration
Back to overview