Björn Gehle, Doug Jones AMFrom: Asia Arbitration Handbook
Edited By: Michael Moser, John Choong
23.01 Australia is a constitutional monarchy governed by a liberal democracy, and is a member of the Commonwealth. The head of government is the Prime Minister, an office held by the leader of the political party that holds power in the Australian House of Representatives. Together, the Senate and the House of Representatives make up Australia’s legislature. Australia’s executive is comprised of the Federal Cabinet and its judiciary is led by the High Court of Australia, the highest court in Australia. 23.02 Australia has six States and three self-governing...
Part V Emergency Arbitrators and Interim Relief, 14 Emergency Arbitrators and Court-Ordered Interim Measures: Is the Choice Important? »
Doug JonesFrom: Defining Issues in International Arbitration: Celebrating 100 Years of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
Edited By: Julio César Betancourt
Parties to a dispute often need urgent relief and may seek interim measures. Interim measures, also known as ‘temporary measures of protection’ or ‘conservatory measures’ are orders by courts or arbitral tribunals directed at the preservation of the status quo until a decision on the merits of the dispute is rendered. Closely related to interim measures is the concept of the emergency arbitrator-an arbitrator appointed post haste upon the application of a party to a dispute to decide an urgent issue that cannot wait until the constitution of the arbitral tribunal to decide it. This chapter considers the emergency arbitrator provisions in the rules of selected arbitral institutions, and the interplay between these provisions and a court’s ability to order interim measures of protection. It discusses the utility of emergency arbitrator provisions in light of issues of enforceability, giving way to both legal and practical implications for the choice between seeking emergency arbitration instead of court-ordered interim measures.