Crossing Borders丨Civil liability of arbitrators
|作者/编者：||Alfredo Guerrero and Fernando Badenes||作者单位：||金杜律师事务所|
Article 21 of the Spanish Arbitration Act (AA), governing the civil liability of arbitrators, has been receiving considerable attention since early 2017 as a result of the Supreme Court Judgment 102/2017 of the civil liability suit fled by PUMA SE.The aforementioned Article 21.1 of the AA significantly reformed Article 16.1 of the former AA of 1988, which had provided that arbitrators could be held liable for damages caused by negligence or willful misconduct in the performance of their duties in arbitration proceedings. The introduction of this new provision limited their liability to cases involving “bad faith, recklessness or negligence”. The motivation behind this reform was to avoid the previous exorbitant liability system, based on any type of fault which could in practice result in a situation with a real effect on the impartiality and independence of the arbitrators or even in arbitrators refusing to accept arbitrations for fear of becoming the target of such broad liability. The ultimate aim of this reform was to codify the concept of “freedom to judge”, enshrined in the principle of “immunity” as existing in Anglo-Saxon legislation, and which solely allowed for liability in those cases in which the conduct of the arbitrators was guided by willful misconduct or inexcusable negligence.
|文章标题||Crossing Borders丨Civil liability of arbitrators|
- ·Crossing Borders丨Civil liability of arbitrators
- ·A new ground to defend bad faith trademark registration – CNIPA rules that new trademark application should reasonably yield to prior trademark right if the applicant has full awareness of other’s prior trademark
- ·China year in review –Where we have been and where we are going?
- ·PRC Courts Grant Trade Dress Protection for Handbags which Overall Appearance is a Combination of Generic Design Elements
- ·China Tightens Regulation for Online Education
- ·Pharmaceuticals and Healthcare in the Civil Code
- ·Why not Use the Time of Telework to Amend the AOA of FIEs?
- ·Principles for Determining Damages Compensation in Intellectual Property Cases
- ·Trademark Use or Not? Trademark Infringement or Not? –The Supreme People’s Court of the P.R.C. Made its Latest Voice in an OEM Related Trademark Infringement Case
- ·China’s NDRC Issued New Outbound Investment Rules
- ·New Era for Infant Formula in China
- ·A Case Study of VON DUTCH (Ⅱ)
- ·1st Civil Case Recognizing Well-known Trademark on Similar Goods
- ·The 1st Year Implementation of the Cybersecurity Law
- ·China is Taking Solid Steps to Open its Banking Sector
- ·Virtual banking in Hong Kong and China
- ·Foreign Investment in China’s Self-Driving Car Sector
- ·Who is responsible for a takeout carrier’s traffic accident?
- ·Chinese Parent Company Guarantees—Is Your Payment Guaranteed?