Interleges presents…
The Stephen Rayner Award 2007

In 2006 Interleges (www.interleges.com), the international association of independent small and medium-sized law firms, founded The Stephen Rayner Award in memory of its co-founder Stephen A. Rayner of London, who died prematurely in 2005. Interleges intends that this award will become an established annual event in the fields of international commercial law and international dispute resolution, and that it shall serve to further the rule of law. The prize will be awarded to the author of the best essay, and is open to undergraduate law students and graduated law trainees from all jurisdictions.*

The Award

Interleges believes that International commercial arbitration is fundamental to the development of international trade. State jurisdiction can be supplemental to international commercial arbitration, but it can also represent a formidable obstacle to arbitration.

The subject matter:

LIS PENDENS in international commercial arbitration: freedom of parties v. monopoly of State courts in dispute resolution

Word limit: 5,000 words

Prize: US$ 4,000.00

Plus an invitation to attend the final dinner of the Interleges Annual General Meeting, to be held in Mexico on 5th May 2007. All expenses paid.

Deadline:  2nd March 2007

Please see following Entry Specifications and Brief Guidance Notes for Applicants.
 

*Specifications

 1. Eligible applicants are undergraduate law students and graduated law trainees from any and all jurisdictions. Graduated trainees are eligible only if they provide evidence that they graduated after 1st January 2005, and that they are not registered as lawyers, advocates, attorneys, judges or notaries within the relevant lawyer’s association or bar. Trainees in any Interleges member firms, Interleges approved correspondents or relatives of lawyers practising in Interleges member firms or Interleges approved correspondents are not eligible. Relatives of the judges and advisors to the competition are also not eligible.

2. The essay shall not exceed 5,000 words and it must be written in English.

3. The essay shall be delivered on or before 2nd March 2007 to the following address:
Interleges c/o Ms. Annalisa Gordon, Interleges Administrator, 348a Old Ford Road, Victoria Park, London E3 5TA, United Kingdom.

4. The essay must be signed and shall contain the following signed statement:
“The applicant certifies that this essay is an original piece of scholarly work. The applicant has properly cited all sources and quotations. The applicant grants any and all copyright attached to his or her essay to Interleges and acknowledges that Interleges is authorised to publish this essay and/or make any use thereof at its entire discretion”.

5. The applicant shall provide written evidence of his or her eligibility to participate in the competition (status of law student or trainee as above specified, etc.). The applicant shall also attach a copy of his or her passport and full contact details, including a telephone number and an e-mail address.

6. Prize money shall be: USD 4,000.00

7. The winner of the contest shall be reimbursed for reasonable travel expenses to and from Puerto Vallarta, Mexico to attend the final dinner of the Interleges Annual General Meeting on 5th May 2007 to receive the award. Interleges shall also bear the cost of the winner’s accommodations at the hotel hosting the AGM.

8. The jury shall be composed of Interleges President Salim El Meouchi Esq. (Beirut), Dr. Arthur E. Appleton Esq. (Partner, Appleton Luff, Geneva), Massimo Vittori Esq. (Counsel at the UN/WTO international trade centre, Geneva), Interleges Vice- President Stefano de Bosio Esq. (Milan) and possibly one or two additional experts. The jury shall be entitled to conduct interviews with applicants either directly or through the Interleges member firm located nearest the applicant. In the event that members of the jury are divided, the vote of the President shall count double.

9. The winner of the award shall be notified by 31st March 2007.

Brief Guidance Note for Participants

Though participants are free to structure their papers as they think fit, we offer the following brief guidance to explain what the Interleges Executive Committee has in mind.

Lis pendens in international commercial arbitration

There is Lis pendens when the same case that is referred to an arbitral tribunal is submitted to another arbitral or State tribunal, or in any other circumstances in which an arbitral or State tribunal may consider itself obliged to stay the respective proceeding because another proceeding is pending.
We mean by the “same case”, two requests on the same grounds object, and parties.
Applicants should define Lis pendens in the field of international arbitration and determine its foundation and its application from a procedural perspective in the context of an international arbitration.
Applicants should deal with the different types of Lis pendens, by outlining the principal decisions in which lis pendens has been treated.
Special attention should be given to the “Fomento” case decided by the Swiss Federal Court.

Monopoly of State courts in dispute resolution

It is assumed that where parties have agreed to have their disputes settled by one or more arbitrators in the framework of an international commercial arbitration, State Courts should in principle respect this agreement. Applicants should provide their view on the validity of this assumption and examine the foundation of this assumption.

Relationship between international commercial arbitration and the monopoly of State courts in dispute resolution

The concurrent jurisdiction between an arbitral tribunal and a judge, or between two arbitral tribunals, or the fact that Court proceedings and arbitral proceedings are pending at the same time, may lead one of the parties in an international arbitration to raise the question of Lis pendens.

Applicants should address the following issues:

(1) In the context of concurrent jurisdiction between an arbitral tribunal and a judge, should the principle of kompetenz-kompetenz be applied and should absolute priority be given to the arbitral proceedings, or on the contrary, should a chronological priority be recognized in favour of the first court seized, or should there be no priority?

(2) Is an arbitral tribunal entitled to resolve the conflict? Or do State courts have a monopoly in resolving the issue? In the latter case, must the arbitral tribunal stay the arbitral proceedings pending a decision on competence by a State court?

(3) Can Lis pendens be raised “ex officio” by the judge or an arbitral tribunal?

(4) What is the status of international conventions relative to lis pendens (do they provide for such cases), and what are the solutions adopted under comparative law?

(5) Are there principles regarding lis pendens that are generally accepted in leading arbitral decisions and court judgements?

(6) May or should a judge suspend State court proceedings when a State court is seized after the same case has been submitted to arbitration? May or should an arbitral tribunal stay the arbitral proceedings when the same case is pending or was pending when the arbitral proceedings were instituted? When is an arbitral proceeding instituted? In which cases should the judge not decline jurisdiction?

(7) What is the impact of Lis pendens on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award by a State court judge? Is the answer to this question different if the judge and the place of arbitration are not in the same State?

(8) What if two opposite awards have been rendered? Which one will be recognized by the State judge and under which conditions will it be recognized?

(9) Is “res judicata” applicable to arbitral awards? If so, when does an arbitral award  become “res judicata”?