CIETAC started the rules revision back in early 2010. During early 2010 I was in CIETAC (as reported in this blog) and had an opportunity to gain valuable insights into the workings of CIETAC, to which I am most grateful to the Director of the International Division. The approach taken on the rules revision was open and thorough via a working group.

As an arbitration institution, established since 1956, CIETAC has vast experience of not only arbitration but also conciliation (or mediation). In the (old) 2005 rules Article 40 allows for the combination of conciliation and arbitration (throughout the arbitration proceeding), a unique feature which the Western world finds rather alien. Alien as the role of a mediator is perceived to be different or separate from an arbitrator, and as such the potential for conflict of interests and/or impartiality issues. The (old) CIETAC rules have served the arbitration community well, and according to CIETAC, 20% to 30% of its annual caseload is resolved through this med-arb process. Furthermore, the new 2012 rules have incorporated additional safeguards (Article 45.8 and 45.10) to strengthen the combination of conciliation and arbitration provision. My guess is that these safeguards are to address and avoid the issues of impartiality, and to prevent a repeat of the case of Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Limited, whereby a Chinese arbitral award was enforced in Hong Kong after a failed med-arb (due to arbitrator impartiality). Also, Article 45.1 to 45.10 amendments to the old 2005 rules on med-arb are clearer in terms of separation of the role of CIETAC, the parties and the tribunal.

On the subject of ‘service of document’, the new rules have added ‘periods of time’ in Article 8.4 perhaps to clarify the starting (time) or commencement of the arbitration. The efficiency of document (paper intensive) handling and administration as performed by the staff at CIETAC are reflected in the new provision, Article 18 Submissions and Exchange of Arbitration Documents. This is perhaps another unique feature of CIETAC in that document exchange is managed by the Secretariat of CIETAC, unless otherwise agreed by the parties and with the consent of the arbitral tribunal or otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal (Article 18.2).

For a detailed commentary on the rules changes, Herbert Smith provides a good breakdown.

I do not know why the ICC specifically use the term ‘Production’. Why not just a Task Force for electronic disclosure or electronic documents?

I fear that by having a Task Force for ‘Production of electronic documents’ and with a mandate specifying two streams (i.e. disclosure and production) signal the potential to focus on disclosure and production with the outcome to report on ‘production of electronic documents’.

The ICC has great world class reports and publications and also a great institution in many ways.

I do hope this new Task Force will break convention and not just focus on the production aspects of e-disclosure.

The mock arbitration was well organised with two sittings comprising of well known arbitrators, lawyers and also a barrister. Only one of the parties was not a lawyer. The participants were mostly from law firms from various European cities.

The mock arbitration was conducted in English and French and the ‘fictitious’ case involved an English Software consulting firm (the Claimant) and a Greek Banking corporation (the Defendant number 1). The claim against the Greek Bank’s majority share owner, a German Bank (the Defendant number 2) was dismissed by the panel in the first hearing.

Besides dismissal of the 3^rd party claim, the tribunal comprising of two French arbitrators (including the chairman) and a Swiss lady arbitrator also dismissed the claimant’s request ( an English Lawyer) for discovery of ‘e-mail diary’.

A mock case no doubt but a ‘real’ cultural show of who wants discovery and who objects to discovery. How interesting!