ARBITRATION in SCOTLAND
the RENAISSANCE
a presentation by
HEW R. DUNDAS
Chartered Arbitrator DipICArb CEDR-Accredited Mediator
Past President CIArb
Co-Author “Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010”
to
CIArb East Anglia Branch
1st June 2012
OVERVIEW of PRESENTATION

Introduction

The History
Attempts at Reform 1985-2008
The 2008/09 Bill

The 2010 Act

Alternative to Adjudication ?

Conclusions
HISTORY of ARBITRATION
in SCOTLAND

Ancient Origins
Cambuskenneth Abbey v Dunfermline Abbey
(1207)
Regiam Majestatem c.1300

Legislative History
Acts of 1598, 1695, 1894
Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions)
(Scotland) Act 1990

The 2002 Bill – CIArb + others
DEFICIENCIES in OLD LAW (1)
No concept of severability
 Kompetenz-Kompetenz rejected

Caledonian Railway (1872)
No inherent/implied power to award
damages, expenses or interest
 Stated Case Procedure

S.3 Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act
1972

Unclear whether Court Rules of Evidence
applied
DEFICIENCIES in OLD LAW (2)
No slip rule;
 No provision regarding privacy or
confidentiality
 No provision for partial or interim awards
 Immunity of arbitrators unclear
 A Party can be the [sole] arbiter
 Inaccessibility of the law

Reliance on a Clerk

Reliance on ancient authority
UNCITRAL & the MODEL LAW

Origins
New York Convention 1958
Why UNCITRAL exists

UNCITRAL Rules 1976, revised 2010

Model Law 1985, revised 2006

S.26 of the 2010 Act

Repeal of the 1990 legislation
Fundamentally flawed
THE 2009 BILL
Consultation process June-Dec. 2008
 Consultation draft September 2008
 Bill published 30th January 2009
 Parliamentary Process

Stages 1/2/3
Hearings
 CIArb submissions – 42,000 words
 Parliament Approves 18th November 2009
 Royal Assent 5th January 2010

The ACT: MAIN FEATURES (1)

Single integrated Act
compare Ireland/Singapore/NZ et al
UNCITRAL Model Law compliant
 Unprecedentedly extensive international
research
 International Best Practice – UNCITRAL
Rules 2010 and s.26
 Procedural Rules in Schedule 1

The ACT: MAIN FEATURES (2)
Easy-to-use structure – Part 1, Part 2 etc
 User-friendly explanatory Rules
 Mandatory and Default Rules

Mandatory – fundamental principles which
cannot be modified or discarded
Default – can be modified/deleted,
otherwise applicable; no vacuum

Role of the Arbitration Agreement
Death of the Submission Agreement
The ACT: MAIN FEATURES (3)

“Consumer” Arbitration
ss.89-91 AA96
SSFARs to £25,000 (indicative upper limit)

Transitional Provisions
Arbitration Acts 1889, 1934, 1950, 1979, 1996
Dinosaurs Still Live !!!
Retain Old Law in Perpetuity
>5 year period
KEY IMPROVEMENTS (1)

Role of the Courts reduced to bare minimum
First instance judgment “more final”
No appeal from any decision by Sheriff
Almost no access to Inner House
NO appeal AT ALL to UK Supreme Court
BUT court will support where necessary
 Law governing Arbitration Agreement (s.6)
 Oral arbitration agreements included
 Arbitrator to be an individual (Rule 3M)

KEY IMPROVEMENTS (2)

Resignation of Arbitrator (Rule 15M)
Immunity Issue (R16M)
Anonymity in Legal Proceedings (s.15)
 Confidentiality (Rule 26D)

Parties can opt out e.g. Public Authorities
Independence of Arbitrator (Rule 8M)
 AARs (s.22/Rule 7M)

CIArb/RICS/LSoS/FoA + others
KEY IMPROVEMENTS (3)
“Dermajaya” provision (s.32(1))
 Gannet v Eastrade (Rule 58(7)(b) - D)
 Cetelem v Roust (Rule 46(4)(b) - D)
 Simplified Language of the Act

Arbiter, oversman, decree arbitral – all gone
Sist, expenses
Economy
“Plain English” Policy
User-friendly approach
COMPARISON with the 1996 ACT
Reduced Role of the Court
 AARs (s.22/R7M)
 Disclosure of Conflicts (Rule 8M)
 Resignation of Arbitrator (R15M)
 Confidentiality (Rule 26D)
 Gannet/Cetelem (R46D/58D)
 Language/Style

RECOMMENDED READING

ARBITRATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2010
by Fraser Davidson, Hew R Dundas & David
Bartos
Pub. W Green & Co (Edinburgh) 2010
ISBN 978-0-414-017772-6
Published Same Day as Act Came into Force

The Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010:
Converting Vision into Reality
[2010] 76 ARBITRATION 2 at p.15
See also [2004] 70 ARBITRATION 2
ALTERNATIVE to ADJUDICATION
?
Arbitrator control of proceedings e.g. R28D
 More detailed process R28-R40
 Court Support R45M+46D
 Wider range of tools e.g. R41D+42M
 Finality
 Enforceability

CONCLUSIONS
THANK YOU
for listening to me
this morning