Is emergency arbitrator relief available in your country? Is this frequently used?
International Arbitration (3rd edition)
No provisions are available under the Arbitration Law. However, if agreed procedures (such as agreed institutional rules) provide for such appointment, in theory this should be valid.
French law does not address emergency arbitrators. Where institutional rules provide for the possibility to appoint an emergency arbitrator, those provisions are upheld in France as a matter of contract (Paris Court of Appeal, 29 April 2003, 2003 Rev Arb 1296). For example, the ICC Rules recognise the possibility of appointing an emergency arbitrator. According to the relevant articles, a party can seek urgent interim or conservatory measures prior to the transmission of the file to the arbitral tribunal (see Article 29 and Appendix V of the ICC Rules).
Not applicable in Cyprus.
The concept of emergency arbitrator relief is unknown to Czech arbitration law.
The recent CICA Rules entered into force at the beginning of 2018 introduced the institution of the emergency arbitrator. Fairly recent in Romanian jurisdictions, emergency arbitrator relief is not frequently used by the parties.
Neither Serbian Law on Arbitration, nor the rules of arbitral institutions in Serbia adopted emergency arbitrator relief.
Although arbitration rules of prominent arbitration commissions in China including CIETAC and BAC have provided for emergency arbitration proceedings, emergency arbitrator relief is not available (cannot be enforced) in mainland China so far.
Emergency arbitrator is rarely used in mainland China. Mr. Wei Sun acted as the emergency arbitrator in a case administered by BAC in 2017. The decision Mr. Wei Sun rendered was finally enforced by Hong Kong court pursuant to Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance. That was the first arbitration case involving emergency arbitrator in mainland China.
a. The DIA-rules makes an emergency arbitrator available. The emergency arbitrator can decide on interim measures. The DIA has not published any numbers of how frequent requests for an emergency arbitrator has been made.
Arbitration law does not provide for emergency arbitrator relief. Such a relief in available under certain institutional rules such as the Rules of Lewiatan Court of Arbitration but it is very rarely used.
The possibility of emergency arbitrator relief is not stipulated in the PILA or the CPC. However, a state court can at all times (i.e. even before constitution of an arbitral tribunal) be seized to obtain interim relief.
The revised Swiss Rules in effect as from 1 July 2012 introduced the possibility to apply for emergency arbitrator relief. Pursuant to art. 43 Swiss Rules a party requiring urgent interim measures before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal may submit an application for emergency relief to the secretariat of the arbitration court. Based on the statistics of the Swiss Chambers' Arbitration Institution, emergency arbitrator relief is not very actively used with only3% of all cases submitted in the year 2015 representing emergency relief procedures.
UAE - Federal
The concept of emergency arbitrator relief was not envisaged within the UAE Arbitration Law. Neither the DIAC nor the ADCCAC currently provide this service.
UAE - Free-zone Jurisdictions
Article 9(b) of the DIFC-LCIA Arbitration Rules provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator.
The International Chambers of Commerce announced in 2017 that it would open a representative office in Abu Dhabi located in the ADGM. The ICC Arbitration Rules (2012) and the ICC Arbitration Rules (2017) both provide the services of an emergency arbitrator. This office became operational in 2018.
Parties in LCIA arbitrations can apply to submit disputes to an emergency arbitrator for urgent relief pending the formation of the arbitral tribunal. The rules governing the appointment of an emergency arbitrator are set out in Article 9B of the LCIA 2014 Rules.
However, this type of relief does not appear to be frequently used. In 2016, the first application under Article 9B of the LCIA 2014 Rules for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator was made, and was rejected. In 2017, only one application was made, which was also rejected. This may be due to the fact that Article 9A of the LCIA 2014 Rules sets out a procedure for the expedited formation of a tribunal, which can be used as an alternative route to obtaining interim measures.
There is also no clear statutory mechanism (unlike Singapore and Hong Kong) to enforce emergency orders/ awards under the 1996 Act.
Parties can apply to the English court for interim relief under s.44 of the 1996 Act, however, it is likely that the court will not intervene where an application could be made to an emergency arbitrator (Gerald Metals SA v The Trustees of the Timis Trust & others  EWHC 2327).
Yes. The SCCA recognizes, and provides full procedural details regarding emergency relief under Article 6 of the SCCA Arbitration Rules. To our knowledge, there is no available track record of the frequency of its use.
Emergency arbitrator relief is not addressed in the FAA, but most institutions, including the AAA, ICDR, CPR, and JAMS rules, have emergency relief procedures available. Emergency procedures appear to be implemented fairly regularly – for instance, the ICDR reported in 2016 that over 70 cases had utilized the two iterations of its emergency procedures since the first procedures were added in 2006, although not all of these cases are or were seated in the U.S.
The concept of an emergency arbitrator is not specifically regulated in Austrian arbitration law.
The Lagos Court of Arbitration Rules 2013 (the “LCA Rules”) make provisions for emergency arbitrators. Under the LCA Rules, interim measures can be requested prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. The idea of an emergency arbitrator was on the need to bridge the gap between the commencement of an arbitration and constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Under the LCA Rules, a party in need of urgent, preservatory or special measures prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal may apply to the LCA Secretariat for such measures and for the appointment of a Special Measures Arbitrator. This move will certainly contribute in widening the scope of interim measures available to parties to arbitration.
According to the rules of arbitration of the Commercial Arbitration Centre of the Portuguese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, until the tribunal is constituted (and unless otherwise agreed by the parties), any party may request that urgent measures may be granted by an emergency arbitrator, appointed by the Chairman of the Centre.
As far as we are informed, emergency arbitrator relief hasn’t been frequently requested.
Neither the ICA nor DAA offers any rules on emergency arbitration. This is somewhat remedied by the fact that pending the constitution of the tribunal a party request a court or — had the parties so agreed — the arbitral institution to grant interim relief.
Emergency arbitrator relief is not a feature of Irish arbitration law, to the extent that it is not provided for in the Arbitration Act, 2010. However, where the parties have agreed to arbitrate under institutional rules which provide for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator, then that would be permissible under Irish law.
The Arbitration Act does not contain provisions regarding emergency arbitrator relief, for instance provisions similar to those contained in the ICC Arbitration Rules article 29. However, as mentioned in the answer to question 2 above, the arbitral tribunal may upon request order a party to take any interim measures the tribunal deems necessary based on the content of the dispute. This measure is not frequently used as such interim decisions by the tribunal cannot be enforced. Consequently, if a party requests emergency relief, it is more common to petition the courts to grant an application for a preliminary injunction. The courts have the power to grant preliminary injunctions even if a dispute is subject to arbitration.
While the DIS Arbitration Rules have been revised in 2018, the rules do not provide for emergency arbitrator relief. The DIS Sport Arbitration Rules, on the other hand provide for interim relief prior to the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, which is due to the very specifics of sport disputes.
While the DIS Arbitration Rules foresee that the arbitration tribunal may issue interim measures, these measures require the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Outside these measures, the parties generally resort to interim relief before the ordinary courts. However, the parties are free to agree on additional terms or institutional rules that provide emergency arbitrator relief.
The Croatian Arbitration Act does not provide for emergency arbitrator relief. In general, interim relief may be granted only after the arbitral tribunal has been constituted. The newest version of the Zagreb Rules provides that in emergency situations, in cases where there is an arbitration clause providing for the application of the Zagreb Rules, the President of the Permanent Arbitration Court of the Croatian Chamber of Economy may order interim measures even before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, which shall be reviewed by the arbitral tribunal once it is constituted.
Emergency arbitrator relief is not regulated in Chilean arbitration laws. Thus, if the arbitral tribunal has not yet been constituted, the only alternative to the party seeking interim relief is to resort to the judicial courts, as stated in Article 9 of the ICAL. In such cases, the interim measures requirement will be regulated under the rules of the CCP.