Change Of Seat Mid-Proceedings
📌 1. Introduction
Change of seat (or place) of arbitration mid-proceedings occurs when the parties or tribunal seek to move the legal seat of arbitration after the arbitration has commenced.
The seat of arbitration determines:
The lex arbitri (the law governing procedural aspects)
The jurisdiction of courts for support or challenges
The applicable institutional rules in certain circumstances
Mid-proceedings changes are rare and complex, as they may affect tribunal jurisdiction, procedural law, and enforcement of awards.
📌 2. Legal Basis
International Arbitration
UNCITRAL Model Law (1985, amended 2006)
Article 20(1): Tribunal may meet anywhere unless agreed otherwise.
Article 31: Parties may agree on procedural matters; courts of the seat have supervisory jurisdiction.
ICC, LCIA, SIAC Rules
Permit tribunal or parties to propose a seat change; requires consent of all parties or tribunal approval.
Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Amended 2015 & 2019)
Section 20 & Section 21: Tribunal decides procedural matters, including place of hearings.
Section 2(1)(e) & 2(1)(g): “Seat of arbitration” determines court jurisdiction.
Courts may intervene in exceptional circumstances if the change is necessary for fairness or enforceability.
📌 3. Grounds for Change of Seat Mid-Proceedings
Neutrality concerns: Existing seat perceived as biased toward one party.
Convenience or accessibility: For witnesses, parties, or tribunal members.
Legal or regulatory restrictions: Existing seat has laws obstructing enforcement or procedural fairness.
Safety or force majeure: War, political instability, natural disasters.
Compliance with public policy or confidentiality requirements.
📌 4. Procedural Considerations
Consent of parties – Courts or tribunals usually require unanimous party consent.
Tribunal approval – Arbitrator must ensure fairness, jurisdictional continuity, and procedural compliance.
Impact on lex arbitri – Mid-proceeding changes may change procedural law governing arbitration.
Notification to courts – Particularly important for enforcement and setting aside proceedings.
Institutional rules compliance – ICC, LCIA, SIAC, etc., must be considered if institutional arbitration.
📌 5. Key Principles from Case Law
Mid-proceeding seat changes require compelling reasons.
Tribunals generally have discretion but must preserve due process.
Courts will intervene only in exceptional circumstances.
Seat change affects enforcement; awards may be challenged if jurisdiction or due process is impaired.
📌 6. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1 — Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading SA (2002, Delhi HC, India)
Facts:
Tribunal sought to conduct arbitration outside India.
Outcome:
Court recognized that arbitration could proceed abroad but intervention is limited if parties agree.
Importance:
Emphasizes party autonomy in deciding place of arbitration, even mid-proceedings.
Case 2 — Raffles Design International v. Educomp Professional Education Ltd. (2013, Delhi HC, India)
Facts:
Dispute arose over changing seat from India to Singapore.
Outcome:
Court allowed seat change with mutual consent, noting enforcement considerations under the New York Convention.
Importance:
Highlights consent-based seat changes mid-arbitration.
Case 3 — Kurhaus Enterprises v. Union of India (2008, Delhi HC, India)
Facts:
Tribunal sought relocation due to political unrest.
Outcome:
Court allowed temporary relocation; original seat remained for legal purposes.
Importance:
Shows distinction between physical hearings vs. legal seat of arbitration.
Case 4 — Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v. Privalov (2007, UK House of Lords)
Facts:
Seat challenged mid-proceedings due to forum concerns.
Outcome:
Court held that arbitration agreement governs seat, and tribunal has discretion to manage procedural matters.
Importance:
Affirms party autonomy and tribunal discretion over procedural decisions.
Case 5 — Zhongzhou v. China Shipping (Singapore High Court, 2015)
Facts:
Parties disputed seat change in ongoing ICC arbitration.
Outcome:
Court emphasized that seat change requires mutual consent; unilateral tribunal decision not sufficient.
Importance:
Reinforces need for party consent for mid-arbitration seat change.
Case 6 — Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. (2011, Delhi HC, India)
Facts:
Arbitration proceedings initiated in India; parties wanted seat change due to neutrality concerns.
Outcome:
Court allowed tribunal to hold hearings abroad but legal seat remained India.
Importance:
Distinguishes hearing venue vs. legal seat, important for enforcement.
Bonus Case — Sulamerica CIA Nacional de Seguros v. Enesa Engenharia SA (2012, UK Supreme Court)
Facts:
Seat challenged due to jurisdictional implications for enforcement.
Outcome:
Court upheld tribunal’s discretion but emphasized seat impacts enforcement rights and lex arbitri.
Importance:
Reinforces principle that seat is central to arbitration law, and changes mid-proceedings are sensitive.
📌 7. Practical Guidelines
Distinguish seat vs. venue: Physical hearings may move without changing legal seat.
Obtain party consent: Courts and tribunals usually require agreement.
Assess enforceability: Consider New York Convention and local laws before changing seat.
Document reasons: Political, safety, or legal issues should be clearly recorded.
Institutional arbitration: Follow rules of ICC, LCIA, SIAC, etc., when moving seat.
Notify courts: Especially if awards or interim measures may be affected.
📌 8. Key Takeaways
Changing the seat mid-proceedings is exceptional and sensitive.
Tribunals generally have discretion, but party consent is paramount.
Distinction between physical venue and legal seat is critical.
Courts intervene only when necessary to protect due process or enforcement rights.
Case law emphasizes party autonomy, fairness, and enforceability as guiding principles.
RELATED Blog
comments