 So it's showing but it's not coming on the YouTube. Yeah. So good evening friends and sorry for the delay. And as we march forward with the knowledge sharing on the platform of Beyond Law CLC, a topic which any youngster or professional which is quite close to them to understand the nuances of international arbitration. Since we will be discussing about the basic concepts so that a young lawyer or a young student of law would be able to understand and make his career in that we thought why not connect with two resource persons who have created the niche within the professional segment as well as otherwise amongst us on the topic. ABC of international arbitration, some key aspects of practice and procedure. And the two resource persons are Dr. Justice beneath Kuthari, a former acting Chief Justice Gujarat Heiko and who has been recently been designated as a senior advocate by the input of India. And Dr. Gordon Blake, leading arbitration specialist, founding partner, blank arbitration FSCO. And, though it was a session, which has been started quite late, but since the speakers are such the topic is such. We are quite hopeful that the participants and those who watch us live and thereafter would pardon us for this, and I will request Dr. Gordon Blake to share his knowledge and insights, or do you Dr. Gordon. Well, thank you very much for the very kind introduction. And thank you very much also to Dr. Justice Katari for sharing the panel. I will present. I was about to say a brief PowerPoint is not that brief, but I think it sort of brings together all the relevant concepts of arbitration that a young arbitration practitioner needs to know about in order to be able to take either an informed judgment call on whether arbitration is of any interest for a fuller career in the law, or indeed, whether, you know, whether a particular understanding of particular aspects of arbitration might be useful in a particular area of law practice by individual practitioner. Now, if we go to the first slide, I think we'll be good if we could enlarge the slide is that possible at all. Because now we've got in the margin, all the individual slides if we could enlarge that is Mr. because are you with me. Okay, his assistant. Can we go to the to the next slide screen sharing, otherwise this left inside slides, but Mr. Gordon I think you can go ahead. Yeah. Can we just go to the next slide then. Yes, that's okay. So just to give a brief office or beyond cnc please display the next slide slide number two. Well, I think I just I just keep going ahead then just for a brief overview. First of all, I will talk briefly about what arbitration is all about a definition of arbitration, then outline the advantages of arbitration talk briefly about the modes of arbitration, contrasting the institutional arbitration with ad hoc arbitration, i.e. arbitration that takes place outside any institutional context. We then briefly take a look at the arbitration agreement as the main source of the arbitrator's mandates and discuss the key components of an arbitration agreement to then move on to the procedural course of an arbitration discussing the key milestones of an arbitration. And then culminate in the arbitration award. So the private judgment rendered by the arbitrator. And then finally, have a brief word about the function played by the state courts in arbitration. So talking about arbitration from a definitional perspective now arbitration is a private dispute resolution mechanism, whereby a judge a private judge, namely an arbitrator renders a private judgment, a so called arbitral award. Now this arbitral war is final and binding on the parties and can usually not be appealed on the merits and we come on to that in further detail later. It usually involves it being international arbitration, an international element very often that will simply be the nationality of the parties. But it might depend on the relevant legislation that governs the arbitration as to whether the individual arbitration truly constitutes an international as opposed to domestic arbitration. So I'll have domestic arbitrations at the domestic level, which often would replace the role played by the courts in domestic disputes. But as I say, we focus on international arbitration so the arbitrations we are taking a look at usually have one or the other international element to them so that they qualify under the relevant laws as international rather than just domestic. So arbitrations are typically animals of contract. So they are consensual in nature and depend on a procedural agreement to arbitrate a dispute resolution agreement between the contracting parties. Now the arbitration agreement can either take form of an arbitration clause as part of a wider main contract. So we'll be one of the rights and obligations of a of a commercial contract for example, or it can take the form of what we call a submission agreement and be concluded between two disputing parties after the dispute has arisen. So we can have an arbitration agreement concluded between two parties, not as part of their initial main contract, but only after a dispute has materialized before the parties have decided to go to arbitration rather than to the courts, they will then enter into a separate agreement separate from the main contract and simply agree to go to arbitration. Okay, so we can have arbitration either arbitration agreements either ex ante before dispute has arisen as part of a main contract. And that dispute resolution clause referring all disputes arising or future disputes arising from the contract to arbitration or ex post after dispute has arisen. The parties deciding the disputing parties to refer the dispute to arbitration rather than to any other forum such as the courts. Arbitration is typically governed by what we call party autonomy it's the contracting parties that make the arbitration. So they've got the freedom to determine procedural parameters of the arbitration process. Unlike the procedural rigidity you will find in the courts. And for example the court rules that precisely prescribe how the process before the courts evolves arbitration is typically confidential. So there's no confidentiality presumptu which means that to make sure that an arbitration process, unlike Evan the court proceeding which is public is confidential, the party should make sure that they either contract into a contractual into a institutional framework that provides for confidentiality, or that they simply ensure that their arbitration agreement makes provision for confidentiality. Okay, but certain contractual rules like the LCA rules for example the rules of arbitration of the London Court of International arbitration one of the leading arbitration institutions in the world. They would have a confidentiality provision incorporated into them. So by contracting into the LCA rules you would contract into the confidentiality of the arbitration process in its totality. Other rules for example the ICC rules the rules of arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce International Court of arbitration in Paris, one of the leading international arbitration institutions does not have a confidentiality provision and therefore parties need to ensure that they contract into a confidentiality on top of contracting into the rules per se, and they would typically do so by including a confidentiality provision into their arbitration agreement. Okay. The advantages of international arbitration as compared to litigation now litigation or the courts are the forum by default, and usually anyone has got a right to defend himself, or indeed to claim for his own rights in a court of law. So arbitration is typically the alternative to that day in court. And what is the true advantage of arbitration over litigation. Now first of all, as we've already heard, it's the procedure of flexibility that arbitration brings with it. So the parties are free to choose the procedural parameters of the arbitration as compared to the procedure rigidity of the court proceedings. One of the main procedural parameters is what we call the seat of the arbitration so parties that agree to arbitration need to agree as to where they wish to seat arbitration. The legal place or seat of the arbitration, ultimately, determines the procedural law that applies to the arbitration process. For example, you choose London as the seat of your arbitration. Then it is the arbitration law of England and Wales, IED 1996 English arbitration act that would apply to the arbitration. If you choose Paris, then it would be the relevant arbitration law in this case it would be the arbitration relevant provisions of the French civil procedures code that would apply to the arbitration. If you choose India, it will be the Indian arbitration act. For example, Delhi, it will be the Indian arbitration act that applies to the procedure of the arbitration. And that is important because the procedure that applies will in turn also determine the courts that come in support of the arbitration where needed. So the courier functions as we call them of the courts supportive functions of the courts in an arbitration process are defined in the underlying arbitration law. And the competent courts would typically be the courts at the seat of the arbitration. So if you choose, for example, London as the seat of the arbitration. It will be in 1996 English arbitration act that applies and it will be the English courts that will have the courier competence in the arbitration. If you choose Delhi, then it will be the Indian courts that will have courier competence. Okay. Now the other main factor parameter is the number of arbitrators how many judges private judges would you want to have. The number of arbitrator always three member tribunal normally, and the number of arbitrators normally needs to be uneven and that is a so called proceed Republic policy requirement in order to ensure that there's no, no risk of having a draw between two judges only but that there's always a casting vote by the chair available. Okay, so no stalemate. The price of the proceedings can equally be freely chosen by the parties very often international arbitration of course it will be the lingua franca of the 21st century, namely English. Now, coming on to the opponent of tribe units. The wonderful thing about arbitration is that the procedural flexibility that exists also allows the parties to freely choose the identity of the private judges that precise over their dispute. So you can choose those judges and by reference to not only the complexity of the dispute rules of the nature of the dispute. So for example, you've got a construction dispute, then you will be able to designate construction specialists or lawyers with special knowledge in construction and as your arbitrator. It applies of course to any other area of the law if you were to have for example an anti trust dispute that needs to be arbitrated you could designate lawyers with a particular experience in antitrust law as your tribunal. And so when it comes to the appointment of a three member tribunal, each party will normally have the right to appoint their own arbitrator the wing or co arbitrator and the two co arbitrators will usually then appoint the chair in turn. So to the courts, you will normally not have any sector specialist judges. Well, albeit that certain jurisdictions have started to, to, well, to develop a sector specialist divisions. In Germany, you would have a so called cartels in art, which is a division of the courts that deals specifically with antitrust disputes due to the complexity and technical nature of those disputes. But generally speaking, courts are generous in nature, and you wouldn't have specialist subdivisions that will cater for certain industry sectors. So, in arbitration, you can freely choose the specialty of your tribunal entirely by reference to the technicality and the complexity of the dispute you're dealing with. Equally, you've got free choice of legal representatives or indeed non legal representatives you wish in arbitration so in arbitration can be represented by anyone literally. Whereas in court proceedings, you can only be represented usually by registered court advocates. The expediency of the proceedings arbitration proceedings are very can be very swift in nature the speed depends ultimately on the commitment parties to drive the process and the tribunal to be able to conduct the arbitration process efficiently and effectively and if the tribunal is carefully chosen that should be entirely possible. And the other factor of expediency is evidently that arbitration awards are final and binding they cannot be open on the merits so there's no appeal on the merits before an arbitration tribunal it's a one stop shop. In court, you have, depending on whether you are in a common law civil law system you've got two to three levels, one to two levels sorry of appeal on the merits, which evidently extends prolongs the overall process for achieving finality obtaining finality. Well the PowerPoint is now disappeared I'm sorry to say. And so, no appeal on the merits before an arbitration tribunal which means an arbitration award is what we call race you the Carter decided matter arbitration awards on arbitration process can only be reopened on grounds of what we call procedural irregularities and procedural irregularities are usually such that go to matters of due one due process, either party didn't have a fair hearing, whether to maybe two other grounds I should mention which can be substantive nature, which is public policy. Public policy inference can be either the substantive nature, for example, anti trust law, if it were to be ignored would be a substantive public policy violation. So, whereas, for example, any other procedurally regularity, not any other but for example the even number of an arbitration tribunal, if one were to have any two arbitrators could well qualify in the particular jurisdiction as a procedural public policy violation. And then you also have the issue of what we call arbitrability as to whether certain substantive subject matter of the law is arbitrable to start maybe submitted to an arbitration tribunal. For example, criminal matters are usually not arbitrable, and they need to go before specialist divisions of the courts before the criminal courts and there will be a public prosecutor and so forth. Now this is something that cannot be outsourced to an arbitration tribunal. So here you would have a typical instance of non arbitrability. And if ever anything that is criminal nature were to be arbitrage it. The resultant arbitration award would be set aside on the basis of non arbitrability. And that of course in the courts, we've got the opportunity of appeal on the merits, and I think I touched upon that, and depending on which legal system you're in you might have one or two bytes at the chair. Now moving on to recoverability of costs in arbitration in certain legal systems of these do you might have difficulties. Well I should start with the courts in the courts in certain legal systems, especially civil law legal systems you might have difficulties with covering your full legal costs before the courts, you will only have nominal recovery of legal fees for example your lawyer's fees, but then full recovery of the court expenses and in common law courts normally you have full recovery throughout so the winning party takes it all out of it including legal costs. In arbitration, because it's all about party autonomy ultimately usually also have the privilege that if the parties at least so agree. Then costs can be awarded on a full and empty basis, whether it is the fees of the tribunal whether it is the fees of any experts that have been appointed tribunal appointed experts or indeed party appointed experts any legal costs incurred by legal representatives, all of that can ultimately be awarded as an element of costs to the winning party or allocated on a relative success basis between the parties by the arbitration tribunal. So that's a huge advantage again over over the courts civil law courts. Now, the other major advantage of arbitration is the universal as we call it enforceability of after awards. The courts may be enforced under international rules and instruments in particular than your convention as we call it in over 170 countries worldwide. No convention that exists between courts worldwide, whether it's a bio or multilevel convention could muster anything like it. I mean the best example you've got is probably the Brussels. Europe in the European Union for the enforcement enforceability of court judgments throughout the European Union in between 27 countries I believe now right. We lost the UK. So 27 country we lost England. So 27 countries is already quite impressive. That is evidently topped by the new convention, which facilitates enforcement barbata rewards in over 170 new convention countries. So all the leading industry nations in the world and beyond. I should also say on that note very briefly let's forget that depending on whether a country has entered into what we call the reciprocity reservation or not under the new convention. And if it hasn't. It might be a subject to very wide enforcement obligations, namely enforcement obligations under the new convention, which are minimal in terms of the formalistic requirements with respect to any. A foreign arbitral award any foreign arbitral award any award rendered outside that particular country, irrespective of whether that originally country of the award is a convention or a non convention country. Okay, and otherwise, new convention awards can only be enforced in other new convention countries. Okay, so there's only enforcement in between 170 odd countries of new convention. And as we've touched upon in the courts. We do not have confidentiality usually, although the free zone courts, you know that the free zone courts being new courts or international courts are sometimes called commercial courts. These are new courts that form all around the world here in the UAE for example as well the Divine International Financial Center courts or the ADGM up with the global market courts. There are a lot special rules of confidentiality, and they make it very easy actually for the parties to contract into more confidentiality friendly regime so those court proceedings normally are not meant to be open to the public. But only if the party so agree. So it's the other way around really. So they try to compete a bit at that level with arbitration in a sense. Moving on to institutional versus ad hoc arbitration there are two different main modes of arbitration. You cannot have an arbitration that is that takes place with an institutional framework, which ultimately means that you contract into an so called arbitration institution to assist in the administration of the arbitration proceedings. That is particularly useful in order to get the arbitration off the ground, because the institution will have ultimately the responsibility to ensure that there's no stalemate in the formation of the arbitration tribunal. Whereas if you're in an ad hoc context, you might have difficulties to have recourse effective recourse in circumstances where there is a stalemate at the beginning of the arbitration process or indeed any time pending the arbitration. For example, when it comes to challenges of an arbitrator, whatever it might be. And those sort of supportive functions of an institution would then have to be outsourced in a net of arbitration to the courier courts and the courier courts as per the provisions in the underlying courier laws, you know the laws of the arbitration, you know the arbitration laws at the seat of the arbitration as we discussed at the beginning, they would have certain competencies to default appointed arbitrators for example where the parties can't agree, or where a party fails to appoint their wing or co arbitrator for example, or where to co arbitrators failed to appoint a president of the tribunal presiding arbitration. So it would then be the courier courts that would step in. But you can imagine that, depending on which jurisdiction you are in that might take longer than anticipated and certainly an institutional setup might be more favorable to have an institution exert those functions. An institution that's dedicated to arbitration only the downside of an arbitration institution is that it costs money. So you have to pay for the services of an institution, which can have a significant impact on the overall costs of an arbitration I mean the ICC in Paris, for example, is hugely expensive. And even smaller disputes you can easily spend $200,000 just and only on getting a tribunal put together for a relatively mediocre dispute, let's say, between $1 to $2 billion dispute will cost you in terms of the institutional and arbitration fees alone $200,000, not to mention then the legal fees on top that you have to pay to your lawyer for representing you in the arbitration. So it can be a costly business. But that again depends partly also on whether the fees that are adopted by the institution are at the law room, i.e. by reference to fee schedule, or whether they are at Oran, so by the hour. The LCA for example adopts an hourly system and they prescribe certain hourly rates for the arbitrators but also for the various individuals, case handlers and so forth that work at the institution and are entrusted with the administration of the arbitration. Yeah. Importantly also, certain institutions the ICC certainly is well known for that, but also now the Dubai International Arbitration Center for example they perform a scrutiny of the award before it is published. And the scrutiny function is important, because it does sort of point arbitrators to certain. And the empirical deficiencies in their award, which can be very important, where, for example, you have an award in your dispositive part of the award. So get some figures wrong, and you award one Durham instead of 10 Durham's for example. But also important in terms of compliance with content and form requirements of an award to ensure that an award is properly enforceable. That is important because you also want to avoid the challenge of an award at the seat of the arbitration. So it's important to make sure that the award that's being rendered is in a sense watertight and can be enforced as well as withstand challenges. And so with a soft or a hard call for scrutiny function, and that can be facilitated to some extent, what the institutions will not be responsible for is ensure that an award compliance with public policy requirements because evidently the institution will not necessarily be sufficiently knowledgeable on the public policy that prevails at a prospective place of enforcement. So one needs to be careful at that level. Let's talk arbitration very briefly. If you want to have your piece of cake and eat it and have an ad hoc arbitration with some form of an institutional input course I input. You can contract into what we call the answer trial rules of arbitration, and they are rules that have been drafted and promulgated by the United Nations Commission of international trade law. They provide interesting enough, even though there's no administering institution per se, but they provide for the president of the permanent court of art, but the secretary general sorry of the permanent court of arbitration in the UK, the Netherlands, as a default appointing authority, in the sense that the secretary general points a default appointment authority to then default appoint an arbitrator where in that arbitration, the two parties either can't agree, or there's otherwise missing arbitrator. Okay. Next slide please. Arbitration agreement key components very briefly. Well the key components of an arbitration agreement are to start the breadth of the arbitration agreement. Normally the separate metascope of an arbitration agreement is fairly wide, and it encompasses all disputes arising from particular issues. So both contractional contractual tortuous causes of action are covered. You might have specific wording to carve out certain parts from the dispute resolution provision. And you can do that, literally by saying all disputes to be referred to arbitration for example except for, and then have a list of disputes let's say, except for accountancy disputes, which are to be referred to expert determination Yeah. So you can easily carve out from the arbitration provision, those pockets of disputes that you do not want to have arbitrated, but that you would like to refer to other dispute resolution for whether that were to be the courts or indeed other forms of ADR alternative dispute resolution. Clearly as we've said already, if you want to go for an institutional arbitration the arbitration clause will have to serve that particular purpose and the party will need to contract into a particular set of arbitration rules. So for example, the LCA rules, the rules of the London Court of International arbitration you would do that by simply saying, or the disputes to refer to arbitration under the LCA rules, which would then also not only incorporate the full body of the LCA rules as they would booklet on their website, but it would also mean that the arbitration proceedings are institutional and that the LCA court would take care of the administration of the reference. Okay. Then we come to the Constitution of the tribunal often arbitration provisions certainly if you want to have an arbitration process will provide for a detailed provision for the Constitution of the tribunal. If it is a shorter provision it will simply say how many arbitrators one or three. And it might also make reference to certain qualifying criteria for the individual arbitrators depending on the nature of the dispute or the likely nature of a dispute. And it will say for example that you know the arbitrator should have a certain level of legal or technical expertise. And possibly also. Well, that's a given it's not necessarily spelled out in the arbitration provision but they need to be impartial independent. They shouldn't work as party advocates and they should have temporal availability to dedicate to the administration respectively resolution of the dispute. Next slide please. Well, then we've got the seat of the arbitration again you will want to make sure that you choose your seat of the arbitration in the arbitration agreement. And we've, I believe, spoken about the seat sufficiently no need to repeat here other than to say that a seat needs to be distinguished from a venue of the arbitration venue of the arbitration is a place of convenience where the party and the tribunal meet or procedural meetings or indeed the hearing and the hearing will be the evidentiary hearing to test witness and expert with this evidence that might have been submitted by the parties of the course of the arbitration support of their respective case. Or indeed also gives an opportunity to the parties to present their case orally, and that will normally done be done in a hearing by way of oral opening submissions. Okay. So we need to choose the language of the arbitration we discussed that importantly here the language of the arbitration will also be the language of the arbiter award. So, the tribunal should be proficient in that particular language and be able to draft an award in that language. So importantly, evidentiary materials should normally be submitted in the language of the arbitration, and that might entail certain costs of translation, evidently. Yeah. What about the law of the arbitration agreement. Well, there's one phenomenon about the arbitration agreement which is called separability, which allows you to choose a law. It's applicable to the arbitration agreement that is different from the law on the merits. So if you've got an arbitration clause sitting in a wider contract and there's a governing law clause the governing law clause does not necessarily apply to the arbitration agreement because the arbitration agreement is considered separable from the main rights and obligations under the main contract or the substantive rights and obligations under the main contract. Move on please. Here's some model wording, you will find some model wording of arbitration clauses in all the leading arbitration rules, they will have at the end or in the annex draft wording for model clause and they are all formulated widely. So they are broad form arbitration clauses. And I've just accepted here some examples as the ICC because there's your own ledger and the answer trial rules also provide for some model wording. That's in an ad hoc context. Next slide please. Additional wording that can be adopted in addition to the model wording you've just seen is in relation to the number of arbitrators and there are certain formulae you would adopt. And this is being done normally in order to avoid that you fall into the trap of drafting a pathological arbitration clause as we call it that might not be enforceable. Okay. So you'd be very careful in drafting arbitration clauses to make sure that they are properly enforceable. So there might be extra wording for the mechanism of appointment of an arbitration tribunal. The seat of the arbitration, a language of the arbitration and then finally the governing law of the arbitration agreement. You will see, and it's all very simple wording not simplistic but simple. So clear and to the point as to avoid service to avoid ambiguous. Next slide please. Well, what about the procedural course of an arbitration very briefly the key milestones in order to trigger an arbitration you will normally serve what we call a request for arbitration in institutional arbitration that will be served on the arbitration solution, which in turn takes care of service of that request upon the respondent party. And then you will invite the respondent party to serve as you see down the first slide and answer to the request. Now that first exchange between the claimant and the respondent will allow them the arbitral institution to assist in the constitution of an efficient arbitration tribunal, because these initial submissions will give all the relevant detail about the parties involved, as well as the dispute. So that it is easier to define and identify suitable arbitrator candidates. Yeah. Then the institution, or indeed in at our context, ultimately, one proceeds to the appointment of the tribunal. If the tribunal is in place, there will usually be what we call a preliminary meeting, and often is also called something else like case management, first case management conference for example. And at this meeting, usually the parties in the tribunal will meet for the first time number one. Number two, what they will do is sign what we call terms of reference, which are a document that defines the limits of the arbitration other with the service agreement for the arbitrator sign all the parties, and each arbitrator, and agree a provisional procedure time table moving forward with the arbitration. Once that is done, the procedure time table will tell the parties what submissions they will have to make. There's usually a statement of claim that will need to provide all the relevant particulars of the claimants case then you will have a statement of defense and counterclaim the response, the counterclaim evidently being the equivalent of a statement of claim for the respondent. So the respondent can in that sense, you know, play the role of a claim by counterclaiming. We will then have an evidential phase, the evidential phase focuses on the submission of fact and expert with evidence and what we call document production. We would then have a second round of submission statement of reply and rejoinder by the respondent party, and then have an evidentiary hearing, which will allow the parties to cross examine each other's witnesses, including fact and expert witnesses to test their evidence, ultimately, will then have post hearing submissions have come after the hearing in which the parties digest what they've heard during the hearing, and they will try to evidently demonstrated the tribunal to what extent the evidence heard during the hearing supports their respective case. And we will then have the tribunal deliberate and render a final award, which is the private judgment. And there are variations of this team available. And you could have, well, all sorts of variations you could have a documents only arbitration, for example, in circumstances where no fact and witness effect and expert witness evidence is required, therefore no testing on that evidence is required you don't need a hearing really, even though you can imagine that some parties might still wish to have a day in court in a better commerce. And to present oral pleadings before tribunals I might still ask for hearing, despite the absence of witness evidence, but nevertheless documents only arbitration would be much swifter, and you would be able to save all the costs of the hearing which can be You could also have what we call a bifurcation, which means that you split issues in the arbitration into preliminary issues on jurisdiction, and the main issues on the merits. So the main issues on the merits go to the issues of the main dispute compliance non compliance with the main rights and obligations of the parties and the main contract. The issues on jurisdiction are such that they go to objections by normally the respondent party to the fact that either the arbitration agreement is not valid, or that there are other jurisdictional issues to be raised, such as the personal scope of the arbitration agreement and that, let's say, if there were to be several respondents that one of the respondents is not a proper party to the arbitration or indeed that the only respondent is not a proper party to the arbitration agreement, because they never signed the arbitration agreement, for example. So this could be a, you know, jurisdiction objection raised at the outset of the proceedings which the tribunal may wish to proceed with on a preliminary basis, and in order if they were to find against their jurisdiction not to prolong the proceedings unnecessarily. There could also be trifecation, trifecation is a phenomenon where you would have jurisdiction objections first, then finding the liability by the tribunal on the merits, provided they've affirmed a jurisdiction. And then finally quantum, ie, well, the quantum of damages to be paid by the liable party. Again, that can be cost saving in big cases, where this allows a streamlining of the process, there being then no need, for example, to have a quantum exercise performed on counterclaims that would have been rejected at the liability stage by the tribunal, for example. Okay, so you only have a quantification exercise with respect to the claims that have already succeeded, as it were at the liability stage. And then about the presentational style and sequence of the various milestones, you can have a memorial or a common law style in terms of the pleadings and memorial style is really you place everything together, ie, you would have a statement of claim with full supporting evidence including witness and expert evidence. So you wouldn't have the separate evidentiary phase really, ultimately, and the common law style is more like I've set out this slide, ultimately take everything in slices and bits of pieces. Okay, that's up to the parties to decide ultimately, and one or the other approach might be preferable depending on the nature and the complexity of the dispute. Next slide please. Now here, the arbitration award that that's when you've reached the end of the arbitration process so the private judgment rendered by the private judges by the arbitrator is called the award. It must comply with certain form and content requirements as we've heard those are defined by the underlying procedural law, which is determined in turn as we know by the seat of the arbitration. Usually, there's an in writing requirements so the arbitration what must be in writing. There's a signature, there's a certain signature execution formalities and in the UE for example as a good example, you need to sign every paper for the award in order to make sure it's properly enforceable. Slight overstatement but I don't want to go into nitty gritty now. You will have to either enclose a copy of the arbitration even to at least set out either verbatim or incorrect summary. The arbitration agreement so the source of the arbitrator's mandate. You will have to place into your order summary of each party's case. Then you will require reasoning part, and ultimately this positive part so this positive part of the end will basically tell the parties who pays who what how much. It might of course we made up of declarations only but I mean that would be a specialist case or declarations and payment orders but anyway. Usually an arbitration award requires a date and the place of issuance. Okay. An arbitration was final and binding so that goes to the finality of the award we've already heard that there's no appeal arbitration award has decided matter raise the Carter and cannot be reopened on the merits. It can only be challenged on procedural irregularity grounds or as we've heard at the beginning public policy, a procedural or substantive policy and non arbitrability. Otherwise, it's globally enforceable. Next slide please. The role of the courts is normally very limited and it's limited to lending support to the arbitration process. And that support takes the form of attachment orders to ring fence assets of prospective award debtors before or after issuance of the award. Just in the constitution of the tribunal. We've heard already about the default upon the function of courier courts, where you don't have an institution in place that would have their own default appointment regime, or indeed where you can rely under the rules on the Secretary General of the PCA, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague. They hear challenges of arbitrators. Again, that is a function that's exercised or exerted by institutions in institutional arbitration. And they grant various forms of interim and injunctive relief. They hear applications for challenges and nullification of the award. That's very important. So courier courts, the courts at the seat of the arbitration are the courts that an award debtor would apply to for the attention nullification or challenge of an award. And this will be done again only on grounds of irregularity and less evidently as a violation of public policy or non arbitrability, both of which would invite a substantive review within limits. Okay. Next slide please. Next slide, please. This is our vadamikum, ultimately, just to summarize. So make sure that your arbitration agreement is properly enforceable. So, which means ultimately to avoid any irregularities in the wording by adapting standard institutional clauses. And you get those clauses, as you recall, from the various websites of the arbiter institutions, leading arbiter institutions, be it the LCA, ICC, DEAC, whatever it might be. You will want to choose an arbitration friendly seat in order to ensure that arbitration awards stay raised, and they're not lightly challengeable. And you don't want the public policy exception to open up a substantive review of your award. And that might of course be the case where you are in a jurisdiction that is not very arbitration friendly and where the courts might be more interventionist than you like. So make sure you choose an arbitration friendly seat in order to protect your award from a vexatious challenges. You can choose a sole arbitrator or tribunal with a relevant combination of experience in the field of law or the industry sector, from which your dispute arises. So you've got for example construction case you might want to look at choosing an engineer, civil engineer as an arbitrator, for example, or even better a lawyer with civil engineering background and sometimes you get dual qualified individuals with a wonderfully fit profile. Make sure that the appointed arbitrators are free from conflict so you don't want to have any issues of partiality and dependence of arbitrators because that will cause procedural irregularity and result in the nullification of the award. You also want to make sure that arbitrators have sufficient time to serve on the particular mandate in order to dedicate the time required to deal with the dispute resolution process efficiently and effectively. You will want to opt into an arbiter institution with a relevant level of experience in order to avoid, avoid a stalemate of the arbitration unnecessarily. You will opt into the answer trial rules if you want to stay at Hock and not pay an arbiter institution but still make sure that you do not incur difficulties in the constitution of the tribunal and you will get your arbitration off the ground without any difficulties. You will want to ensure the compliance of the arbitration process with mandatory form requirements due process and public policy for the reasons we've seen. And finally, you will want to make sure that the award complies with all relevant form and content requirements to make sure it's properly enforceable and cannot be challenged at the seat of the arbitration. So, I believe I close my presentation and of course available for any questions. Thank you. I'm not hearing unfortunately. Now I've been unmuted by the votes. Thank you very much Gordon for wonderful detailed analysis of the ABCD or as you used to say nuts and bolts of the international arbitration of the year. I think the audience is largely benefited by your explanation given with the BPD presentation. I think you are sorry Dr Kotari is that the nuts and bolts of arbitration or the bolts of arbitration that we go nuts about. But the nuts and bolts fit in each other always. Sorry, I didn't want to interrupt. Okay, of course we don't want to screw up anybody but the rules. That's right. Thank you anyways for the wonderful thing and I'm happy to inform the London audience that I and Dr Gordon had done a similar webinar for the benefit of Rajasthan business and professional group of Dubai on 30th April earlier. And we became friends then and good friends, of course, and he is of course a leading arbitrator in London and Dubai there. And through him I got introduced to some groups. And today we decided the request of Mr Vikas who does wonderfully well in beyond law CLC to organize these kind of webinars, and I have been his kind of almost a regular feature you can say or a lecture there. And I'm happy to know that because while delivering some lectures in the webinars, you have to study certain things and then you become a student and you stand to gain also. So friends after the detailed analysis of Dr Gordon blank, my job is now to give you some idea about the enforcement or enforceability of the international commercial arbitration awards or what we call them foreign awards. There is a fine distinction between two only. But since we in India have to deal because with the now the trade going very early less and worldwide, we are becoming a global village, the international disputes are also likely to increase. And therefore we Indian lawyers and judiciary people concerned with this idea mechanism should learn the nitty-gritty of international arbitration also. And therefore we found that this topic is of relevance to the Indian audience also. And therefore we had the request of Mr Vikas that we again decided to do this webinar today. And I am sure the audience is benefited so far by hearing Dr Gordon. And let me give you some some points regarding the enforceability of the foreign hours, which is of equal importance because even if you have got or secured and a foreign about in the international commercial arbitration, then how that is to be implemented in our country. And what are the restrictions what are the obstacles what is the status and how it is ultimately done. We should know something about that also. So friends, I can just give you a first a bird's eye view of the 1996 act of India, which we call arbitration and consolidation act 1996, that is divided in four parts. Part one deals with domestic arbitration, as you know, and you must be dealing with that subject quite often. Part one a was introduced by 2015 act, creating a separate arbitration Council of India is competition, construction, etc, etc. That is yet to be notified finally, but the infrastructure for that has been placed in the statute book in part one a part two of the arbitration act 1996 deals with enforcement of foreign hours, with which we are currently concerned and I'll be dealing with that. And then part three of the eight deals with consolation procedure, which is akin to somewhat akin to mediation procedure of which we are hearing these days that new mediation bill is under process of enactment in our country. After several section 89 defects and deficiencies were found by Supreme Court, and now the new law to give a shape to that law is coming. So consolation and mediation presently we are not discussing today that's itself a separate chapter and part four deals with supplementary provisions section 82 onwards. So today I'm going to tell you something about the part two of the act of 1996, which deals with the implementation of the foreign tax. Now, let me first tell you the, what is international commercial arbitration with which we are presently concerned and with this part two applies section two itself defines international commercial arbitration. And just briefly for your ready reference I will read that definition to you. International commercial arbitration means an arbitration relating to disputes arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not this is important because disputes can be arising out of contact or even torturous liabilities also. This is considered as commercial under the law in force in India, and where at least one of the parties is an individual who is a national or habitually resident in any country other than India. Plus to a body corporate which is incorporated in any country other than India, three an association or body individuals whose central management or control is exercised by in any country other than India for the government of foreign. A party to the contract or without contact also to the dispute is a foreign body for a national foreign sovereign country. If that is there, and the nature of the dispute is commercial as for the law in India, then it is called international commercial dispute, which is subject matter of international arbitration as we understand that. Now, in our this section 36 of the 1996 act normally deals with the enforcement of the abards, part two does not talk of anything to a stage prior to passing of the award. Therefore, passing of the award even in the international commercial arbitration has to follow the same path with the domestic arbitration follows. And that distinction or that point should be noted by the learning members of the audience. But since that has been dealt with by Dr. Gordon blank, I'm not repeating anything what he has been only told to you. So let me straight away come to the implementation in part two of the act, which is starting from section 44 onwards in the 44 to section 50 44 onwards in part two up to section 52 deals with the enforcement of New York Convention. There are two conventions which are important. New York Convention awards is part two section 44 to 52. Then Geneva Convention awards are dealt with in section 53 to 60 of the 1996 act. And that is how two chapters are now mostly most of the awards are covered by the New York Convention act and New York Convention dealing from section 44 to 52 and therefore highlight some issues I will highlight of this chapter particularly. And the provisions are almost similar to Geneva Convention, it's only a matter of which member states have signed which convention, depending on that, the entire the enforcement of those awards in those countries is allowed. The status of arbitral award as you all know, is that of a decree passed by a civil court, but back before that is enforced by a Indian court, a foreign award is implemented. There are certain preliminary things which have to be or preliminary hurdles if I may say that or certain objections which are can be raised against the implementation, which should be taken care. And as Gordon was kind of to just briefly highlight that public policy and all those issues, just briefly I'll tell you about that also. Now section 44 is very simple that foreign award means an arbitral award on differences between persons arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, considered as commercial under the law enforcing India, almost the same definition which we wrote in traditional function, made on or after 11th day of October 1960, then clause says in persons on agreement in writing or arbitration to which convention set forth in the first schedule applies, that is New York Convention. And clause B, in one of such territories and the central government being satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made, or may by the official, declare to be territories to which the set convention applies. So the territory India has been notified and therefore the territory to be notified is covered by section 44, and then the foreign awards are implemented or exhibited executable in our country, even if it's made outside the country. Now let us briefly understand difference. International commercial arbitration, a party to the dispute or party to the contract should be a foreign national or a foreign country or a foreign body conflict. But a foreign award, even if it is made in India, but if the party is a foreign national or a foreign country or a foreign body conflict, it will be for an award. Part due to the contract and the seat of the arbitration, if it is outside India, then it is foreign. But even if it is made in India, suppose the Bombay is chosen as a seat of arbitration, and one of the parties is in Dubai or London or wherever, and one party is in India, it will still be for an award. Implemental, executable in this chapter 44, part two of the act. Now, the main thing which one should understand as the objections or obstacles are prescribed in section 48 of the act of 1996, which we should slightly more carefully examine. Friends, I may briefly summarize for you section 48 notification, the objections, which can be raised by the judgment data or on the party against whom the foreign award is made. The parties were under some incapacity to enter into contact can be one of the grounds that can be raised as an objection that the party was never entitled to enter into that contract. Then section 48 says further, agreement was not valid as per law applicable or domestic law, both where the seat of the arbitration is chosen as per the law of that country, or as per the Indian law. If the agreement is not a valid agreement, then award arising out of dispute out of such agreement cannot be executed. Then breach of principles of natural justice as he said procedural irregularities, if a party has not been given sufficient opportunity to place his case before the arbitral fragment, even in a foreign award, then that can be ground to challenge that award against execution. Then next round is award deals with issues not referred or covered in the scope. So non-arbitrary ability is another point on which the execution can be challenged. So the arbitrator should be, arbitral cabinet should be careful enough to see that the points decided by the award are covered within the reference terms or are otherwise not non-arbitrary. For example, crime, a dispute arising in a crime cannot be arbitrable and therefore no award on that issue can be executed in the country. Then one more, composition of tribunal was not in accordance with the agreement or law of the country where arbitration took place. So you have to fall in conformity of the both laws, the place where or the seat of the arbitration was there, that country plus Indian law. Both the laws should be complied with for deciding the composition of the arbitral tribunal in the cases of international arbitration. And last round is, last but one rather, that award has not yet become final or binding. Suppose there is some proceedings taken in a court in that foreign country against that award and that award has been either stayed or suspended or even set aside on a proper ground. Then that there is no question of executing that award in India. So that aspect of the execution has to be looked into by the Indian courts when the award is brought before for execution. The subject matter of dispute is not capable of settlement as per the law in India. That will cover the public policy issue also. That if it is against the public policy of India, then it is not executable. Now there is some times a issue raised earlier it was there that whether a patent illegality on the face of the award is a ground to set aside that or not. Now that is a rather I would say a gray area. Apparently the patent illegality on foreign awards is not a ground to set aside that but section 34 of our 1996 act has that as a ground. So that makes the execution of a foreign award in India a scope is narrow for the courts of country court of India to examine the patent illegality in the case of execution of foreign awards. So the only public policy is a area where the or violation of Indian laws of course or violation of that country's laws also etc. These are the grounds specified in section 48 which one has to examine before declaring it to be a decree fit for execution in India. So these aspects friends are very very important and section 48 is the crux of part two of the Indian law in the matters of foreign awards when they are brought before the Indian court because finally awards are executed where the assets of the judgment debtors are located. You have to realize certain money you have to take certain assets of the judgment that are into possession auction them and then realize the money out of that. Therefore the the the place of execution is very important and law of that country is also equally important and section 48 enumerates certain grounds for challenging the execution of the foreign awards and one has to be very very careful about these aspects. Some of the aspects in section 48 should be taken care at the right at the beginning like arbitrability of the issue composition of the arbitral travel etc. And issues which are referred these issues should be examined as the end Gordon was right to point out that issues can be segregated in two parts preliminary issues like jurisdiction issues limitation issues. They should be decided first as in civil trial we see generally preliminary issue should be decided first so that that hurdle is cost and then on merits you pronounce upon the award and then you pass the final. Now case laws are also there I may just give you some citations for reference because there is no time to discuss them in more detail. But these some cases in international commercial arbitrations have been rendered by the Supreme Court of India and some high courts also which I think for the benefit of audience I should point out the oldest case which I found in this is Renu Sagar Power Company. 1994 supplementary one SSC paste 644. Then ONCC versus saw pipes AIR 2003 SC paste 2629. They have been later on discussed in associate builders was a DDA Manu script is Supreme Court based 1076 of 2014. And just giving you citations and the name of the case, you can go through these segments and we can discuss some other forum on these cases also. Then she la la limited versus pro geto Grana spa. Lal Mahal case 2014 to SCC page 43. The Supreme Court in this case limited the scope of public policy as a ground of section 48 and within parameters of section 34 of the debate on 48 and 34 was discussed by the almost Supreme Court in this case 2014 to SCC page 433. Now post 2015 amendment of this 1996 act, the patent illegality as such is not a ground to assay a foreign as I say, unless it is a violation of public policy. Illegality by itself in the award will not be a ground, but violation of public policy will be a ground under section 48. That was the effect of 2015 amendment of 1996 in our country. The next case which you should consider is of 2020 during covid periods, Vijay Karya versus Prismian Kevin 2020 SCC online page 177. The Supreme Court held that courts can exercise discretion to refuse enforcement of overseas ads on various grounds. They no longer have discretion concerning the grounds of fraud corruption, fundamental coverage of Indian law primary notions of justice and morality. So these general grounds of morality and etc are no longer grounds. Then another case which you can see is EIG Mauritius Limited versus McNally Bharat Engineering. It was decided on 10th of November 2021 by Calcutta High Court Manu West Bengal 0759202121. Now these are the some of the Supreme Court judgments and when Calcutta High Court judgments are given to you, which deal with the scope of section 48. Now 48, even though may appear to be widelyverted, but its scope has been discussed by the Honourable Supreme Court of India to say in clear terms that scope is far narrower than section 34 also, which itself was a narrower scope to challenge the enforceability of the oil. Because the whole intention of the arbitration proceedings is to expedite the resolution of the dispute. Therefore, if you leave the scope to challenge the awards in a larger field, then the whole purpose is likely to be defeated. That is why the legislative in its wisdom has laid down the narrower grounds in section 34 and further narrower grounds in section 48 as far as foreign awards are concerned. So now with this, I would also sum up saying that foreign awards arising out of international commercial arbitrations is a binding judgment on the parties. The scope of interference of the courts in India as well as in other countries also is very, very limited because the intention of UN Citadel model is to give enforcement into these awards in a as quick manner as it is possible. There were very limited grounds on valid evidence produced before the courts in the country can be taken or raised to set aside or stay or suspend the execution of foreign awards. So in this important backdrop, I think we can conclude that arbitration as a ADR method is picking the fast not only India but throughout the world because people everywhere are not able to afford cost wise or time wise. The litigation in the commercial dispute which is of great importance and unless you provide ease of business to the international traders or manufacturers, suppliers or buyers or corporates, then the entire economy has a negative impact of that. And that is why ADR in domestic area as well as international commercial disputes was considered and the law is developing in this field very fast. You will see series of Supreme Court judgments on arbitration in last five to six years, and that is to help understand the importance of this ADR mechanism in a proper perspective and to lay down the guidelines for the lower treadmills and the arbitration centers, arbitral treadmills to follow that law and complete the process as quickly as possible. With these words, I would also rest my address here and we'll give you some 5-10 minutes time if there are some specific questions, we can take those questions and answer them or otherwise whatever manner you want to conclude. Mr. Vikas, over to you. Yeah, thank you sir. It was an engaging and enriching session and I'm quite sure that people will actually have so many takeaways that they would feel that within one hour there was so much to have. So it shows as if it is a capsule but as the capsule also gives a total relief to the person. So the knowledge being shared in a capsule form is quite enriching. Mr. Hariharan, can the procedural language be different from the award language in practice? The language of proceedings. Procedural language, can procedural language be different from the award language in practice? No, I don't think so. Language of the arbitral proceedings have to be decided before end and for that will apply, that will be unanimously decided for the award also and the procedures also for the evidence and for whatever statements etc to be recorded. There is no bilingual, Gordon, what is your view? Can a bilingual language method be adopted? Unmute yourself, please unmute Mr. Gordon. Just hold on. So yeah. He keeps these speakers unmuted. No, yes, now unmuted. Now it's working. Okay, excellent. Let me put it this way. Nothing is impossible in arbitration as long as it doesn't violate public policy or due process. Let's say procedural public policy or procedural due process in this context. Because the language will be a procedural matter. But let's think about the following. What would be the practicality of having an award in a language different from the language of the proceedings? Doesn't make any sense to me, to be honest. So I think it's a very hypothetical question. Ultimately, well, if all the relevant stakeholders are proficient in the relevant two languages, then you could imagine in theory that it is agreed between the parties and the tribunal to have a dual language proceeding. It's certainly imaginable that certain witnesses might testify in their mother tongue and you might not even need a translator, for example, because both the tribunal as well as the relevant other stakeholders or the relevant parties are bilingual, in which case that's absolutely fine. But it needs to be ultimately properly agreed between the parties and the tribunal. Yes, you can go, sir. The question specifically as to whether you can have an award in a different language from the language of the proceedings, I think is a completely impractical question, quite frankly. Hypothetically, I think it could be possible if all the parties agree, but I can't even imagine a situation where that would be the case. You get my point. But in the court where it is presented for execution, in any case, that has to be in the authorised language of that court. Suppose it is a Spanish award in Spanish language, and you want to get it executed in India where the authorised language is English. In any case, the translation of that authorised translation will have to be reduced. Actually, an interesting point is where you probably would have that effect that the question ultimately tries to elucidate. I think under certain laws, certainly in the Middle East, it used to be the case that an arbitration award had to be amended in Arabic from the start. Okay, so there you could have had a situation where certain bilingual arbitrators would have conducted the arbitration process in English, but rendered the award in Arabic as a first language and then the award would have been translated into English for everyone to benefit from. But from that angle, yeah, it could be imagined that you would have the proceedings in English, the original award in Arabic, but then translated back into English. Yeah, so thank you for the question. Actually, maybe it's not that hypothetical a question, at least considering the historical development in certain countries. Therefore, translation in any case will become necessary even if bilingual thing is not adopted in the arbitral proceedings, proceedings part and award part, normally that would go in one. That is hypothetically possible, or legally permissible as you can say. Finally, it really had to be in the language where the court executing that award has to understand that. That's right. Absolutely. Unless of course, you're in the lucky position and in certain countries, I think there's more of a tendency to do so than in others. And you're in the lucky position of voluntary compliance by award debtors with the terms of arbitration awards, in which case you don't need to go world war. And that's of course the way it should be normally, because the terms of the board are binding on it. Law mentions that the award should be implemented by the debtor. It's not only when he does not do it, one has to go to the court. Absolutely, absolutely. Yes, because any other point or question is LICA DIFC Dubai provides for arbitration rules if no substantive law is specified in arbitration clause, which law would be applicable in a case of a dispute where seat is Dubai. One party is from Indiana, another is in UAE. Sorry, we are talking about the substantive law, the procedural law. But first of all, forget about the DIFC LCA. It exists no more, it's defunct. I don't know whether you've heard about Decree 34 2021, which was adopted in September last year, that led to the dismantlement of the DIFC LCA, so it doesn't exist anymore. Nowadays, you would only have a DIFC seat arbitration under the LCA rules in London basically. Now as regards the procedural law, the procedural law will be the law of the seat, no matter what. So if you've got a DIFC seat, the DIFC arbitration law would apply. But I believe we had a substantive law question as well, right? A law of the merits question, is that right? Yes, Dubai provides for arbitration rules if no substantive law is specified in the arbitration clause, which law will be applicable in case of a dispute where seat is in Dubai and one party is from Indiana, another is in UAE. Yeah, no, it's ultimately a question of the governing law clause, respectively a question of the arbitration tribunal where the power to determine the law on the merits. So how do you have a separate law like we have arbitration and consumer act 1996, does the UAE also have a separate substantive law on arbitration in UAE? You mean the onshore, the UAE federal arbitration law would apply to onshore arbitrations, but that's a question of the seat. So if you seat the arbitration in mainland Dubai, for example, rather than the DIFC, which is offshore, then it would be the UAE federal arbitration law that applies 2018. The moment you go for DIFC, it's the DIFC arbitration law, the moment you go for the ADGM, the second judicial free zone, it would be the Abu Dhabi global market arbitration regulations 2015 that apply. Okay, so we've got in the UAE, we've got a binary system between onshore and offshore, you can have an onshore and offshore seat of arbitration. The onshore seat will engage the onshore, the UAE federal arbitration law, and the onshore courts, for example, if you seat it in mainland Dubai, it will be Dubai courts, if you seat it in Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi courts, if you seat it in Sharjah, another Emirate Sharjah courts. If you go offshore into one of the judicial free zones, which got their own legal system, ultimately, and their own laws, including procedural, and they have also an arbitration law, and you will trigger by seating the arbitration in those free zones the arbitration of the free zone arbitration law, either DIFC arbitration law or the ADGM arbitration regulations, and the courier competence of their respective courts on either DIFC courts respective the ADGM courts, and those courts are modeled on English common law. Okay, they are basically English courts. And I've referred to the ADGM actually as a legal system before as a little England and Wales, because the ADGM has decided at the substantive level to incorporate all English common law by statute, which is amazing. So you've got a little England and Wales sitting in the midst of Abu Dhabi, which is called the ADGM. It's quite, quite interesting. Okay, one of the timelines for the initiation and completion of arbitration proceedings and such like this. Are there time bounds scheduling? Well, the timelines for initiating an arbitration, it depends entirely. It depends basically number one on whether there are any so-called conditions precedent in your dispute resolution provisions. So if you've got an arbitration clause that's embedded in the wider dispute resolution provision, for example, clause 67 of the FIDIC conditions, 1987 fourth edition, for example, you will, and this is all about construction projects. So many construction projects in the Middle East and certainly also I suppose in India, but correct me if I'm wrong, are governed by FIDIC conditions. And the FIDIC conditions contain a suite of dispute resolution provisions under clause 67. And clause 67 provides for arbitration as the ultimate means of dispute resolution if other means of dispute resolution fail. The other means of dispute resolution ultimately are a referral to the engineer to deal with the dispute, then ultimately amicable settlement, and then finally own the escalation to arbitration. Okay. And here you've got a very strict timeline that leads you all the way along from the engineer's referral to an expression of discontent or dissatisfaction with the engineer's decision and an intention to commence arbitral proceedings. Or to refer to arbitration and then ultimately amicable settlement and the actual escalation to arbitration. And if you do not comply strictly with these sort of timeline that's laid down in between these different steps, then you might well be out of time for your referral to arbitration. And the engineer's decision might have become final and binding, for example. Okay. But other than that, if you do not have any conditions precedent, you can start your arbitration whenever you like. And the only limitation would probably be the statutory limitation periods for particular causes of action under the relevant governing laws. So, for contract and taught, basically. Okay, but other than that, there's no limitation as to when you would be entitled to commence an arbitration. For example, in the UAE. The courts have found that a referral to arbitration does not require a prior notice. And where you've got an arbitration clause, and there's no further contractual specification as to how the arbitration is to be triggered. You can just go straightforwardly to arbitration. Okay. Thank you, Mr Gordon. The session was quite engaging as I said earlier. And the questions have been well taken and well, the points have been well hammered. And thank you. Once again, on behalf of beyond law CLC team for sharing your insights. And tomorrow, friends, the session would be on on tools of executive and legislative parts of the states. By BG Harindranath, a former law secretary of Kerala, coupled with he's a former district and session judge and now he's the practicing advocate. So do stay connected with us at 6pm Indian standard times. Thank you everyone. Stay safe.