Setting aside arbitral awardPublic policyContract terminationNotice period
Tags
ArbitrationContract terminationService agreement
legislation
Statutes Cited
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the application to set aside the arbitral award was filed within the three-month period prescribed by Article 34(3) of the Model Law","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Date of receipt of arbitral award"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the arbitral award should be set aside on public policy grounds","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator's interpretation of contract clauses 7.1 and 10.1"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant and first respondent entered into a Services Agreement in 2009 for a fixed term ending 31 October 2015. The first respondent terminated the agreement in May 2014 under clause 7(1) giving one month's notice. The applicant initially accepted termination but later disputed it, claiming breach of contract. The dispute was referred to arbitration where the arbitrator dismissed the claim. The applicant sought to set aside the arbitral award on public policy grounds.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases