What is Ad Hoc Arbitration?
What is Ad Hoc Arbitration?
1. Definition
Ad Hoc Arbitration refers to a type of arbitration where the parties agree to resolve their dispute through arbitration without the involvement of a permanent arbitral institution or organization.
In this setup, the arbitration process is conducted on an ad hoc basis, meaning it is organized and managed by the parties themselves or their appointed arbitrators, rather than by an established arbitration institution.
2. Key Characteristics of Ad Hoc Arbitration
| Feature | Explanation |
|---|---|
| No Institutional Support | No permanent arbitration institution administers the proceedings. |
| Party Autonomy | Parties have full freedom to decide procedural rules, venue, language, arbitrators, and timetable. |
| Flexible Procedures | Procedures are designed by parties or arbitrators, often based on agreed rules (like UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules). |
| Cost-Effective | Usually less expensive than institutional arbitration as there are no institutional fees. |
| Requires Cooperation | Success depends heavily on parties’ and arbitrators’ cooperation and initiative. |
| No Automatic Case Management | Parties need to manage all administrative aspects themselves. |
3. How Does Ad Hoc Arbitration Work?
The parties first agree to resolve disputes through arbitration and may specify:
Number of arbitrators
Method of appointment
Seat and language of arbitration
Procedural rules (if any), e.g., UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules
The arbitration proceeds without an institutional framework; the parties or arbitrators must manage notices, submissions, hearings, evidence, and award issuance.
The award can be enforced under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or relevant international conventions like the New York Convention.
4. Difference Between Ad Hoc Arbitration and Institutional Arbitration
| Aspect | Ad Hoc Arbitration | Institutional Arbitration |
|---|---|---|
| Administration | Parties and arbitrators administer the process | Administered by permanent arbitral institution |
| Rules | Parties select or create their own rules | Institution’s pre-established procedural rules |
| Costs | Generally lower (no institutional fees) | Higher due to institution’s fees |
| Support Services | Limited or none (no secretariat, no case management) | Full support including case management, facilities, and enforcement assistance |
| Neutrality | Depends on arbitrators and parties | Institution acts as a neutral administrator |
| Efficiency | Depends on parties’ and arbitrators’ efforts | Generally more streamlined |
5. Advantages of Ad Hoc Arbitration
Flexibility: Parties can tailor procedures to their needs.
Cost-Effectiveness: Avoids institutional fees.
Party Autonomy: Full control over appointment of arbitrators, procedural rules, and timelines.
Confidentiality: Privacy is maintained as no institution records or publishes proceedings.
6. Disadvantages of Ad Hoc Arbitration
Lack of Administrative Support: Parties must manage all procedural aspects themselves.
Risk of Deadlock: If parties disagree, delays or impasses may arise.
Potential Inefficiency: Without institutional management, proceedings may be prolonged or disorganized.
Enforcement Challenges: Although awards are enforceable, the absence of institutional backing may sometimes complicate matters.
7. Relevant Case Law
a) Union of India v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, AIR 1993 SC 2349
The Supreme Court recognized the validity of ad hoc arbitration agreements and upheld their enforceability.
It held that arbitration agreements do not need to be institutional; parties are free to agree to ad hoc arbitration.
b) Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532
The court observed that ad hoc arbitration is a legitimate and effective method of dispute resolution, emphasizing the importance of party autonomy.
It highlighted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act does not mandate institutional arbitration and supports both forms.
c) Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. v. Bajranglal Agarwal & Co., AIR 1995 SC 1329
The court held that ad hoc arbitration awards are as enforceable as institutional arbitration awards, provided procedural fairness is maintained.
8. Summary
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| What it is | Arbitration without an institution, managed by parties/arbitrators |
| Procedure | Flexible, based on party agreement or recognized rules (e.g., UNCITRAL) |
| Advantages | Flexibility, cost-effectiveness, party autonomy |
| Disadvantages | No administrative support, possible inefficiencies |
| Legal Validity | Fully valid and enforceable under Indian law and international treaties |
| Key Case Laws | Union of India v. McDonnell Douglas, Booz Allen & Hamilton, Kvaerner Cementation |
9. Conclusion
Ad Hoc Arbitration is a flexible, party-driven method of dispute resolution that allows parties to maintain maximum control over their arbitration process without institutional involvement. While it offers advantages in terms of autonomy and cost, it also requires parties to be proactive and cooperative to avoid procedural difficulties. Indian courts have consistently upheld the legitimacy and enforceability of ad hoc arbitration, thereby supporting its role as an alternative to institutional arbitration.
RELATED Blog
0 comments