• Search

The European, Middle Eastern and African Arbitration Review 2016

Finland

The 104-year old Arbitration Institute of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (the FAI),1 established in 1911, has a long and distinguished pedigree in arbitration. The FAI’s current state-of-the-art Arbitration Rules were launched on 1 June 2013 (the FAI Rules)2 following a substantial reformation process to bring the FAI Rules in line with the best international arbitration norms and practices. Today, the FAI is a wold-class arbitration centre and the FAI Rules offer an attractive alternative for resolving complex international arbitration disputes. This article explores the practical application of the FAI Rules in the past two years following their launch and provides an introduction to the current arbitration landscape in Finland.

The 2013 FAI Rules operate at the cutting edge of international arbitration practice

The FAI Rules comprise a combination of the recent amendments to the 2012 ICC Rules, 2010 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and Swiss Rules of International Arbitration 2012. Accordingly, the FAI Rules establish a comprehensive, expeditious and cost-efficient procedural framework for international and domestic arbitration, while respecting party autonomy and preserving the necessary flexibility to the proceedings.

The FAI Rules impose a number of obligations on parties and tribunals that are designed to reduce time and costs of the proceedings. In line with the Swiss Rules, parties and tribunals have an overall good faith obligation ‘to make every effort to contribute to the efficient conduct of the proceedings in order to avoid unnecessary costs and delays’.3 The tribunal is further authorised to order cost sanctions on a party that fails to comply with this overall duty.

In the spirit of the overall duty to conduct the proceedings expeditiously and cost-efficiently, the FAI Rules obligate tribunals to: arrange a preparatory conference at an early stage of the proceedings;4 establish a procedural timetable at the outset of the proceedings;5 and, as soon as possible after the last hearing date or the date on which the tribunal receives the last authorised written submission, declare the proceedings closed and inform the parties and the FAI of the date by which it expects to issue the final award.6 The arbitral tribunal is, however, obligated to render the final award within nine months from the receipt of the case file.7 The FAI may nevertheless extend this limit ‘upon a reasoned request of the arbitral tribunal’.8

The FAI Rules also enable the tribunal to control the length of the proceedings in a number of ways, such as:

  • by setting cut-off dates for the presentation of new claims, arguments or evidence or the introduction of new witnesses;9or
  • by ordering any party at any time to identify the documentary evidence that the party intends to rely on, specify the circumstances that the party intends to prove by such evidence and to produce any documents or other evidence that the tribunal may consider relevant to the outcome of the case.10

The FAI Rules further provide for effective administration of multiparty and multi-contract arbitrations on even more liberal conditions than the ICC Rules11 and confer the parties access to emergency arbitrator procedure prior to the appointment of the tribunal,12 as well as for arbitrator-oriented interim relief after the tribunal’s appointment.13

Moreover, the FAI Rules introduce an implied confidentiality obligation on the parties, the tribunal and the FAI,14 and provide for a number of other recently debated arbitration issues, such as: the tribunal’s use of a secretary;15 the taking of evidence;16 and the challenge of arbitrators following the tribunal’s participation in the parties’ settlement negotiation.17

The FAI Rules apply to FAI arbitrations commenced on or after 1 June 2013, with the exception of: the emergency arbitrator procedure; the provisions for the joinder of additional parties; claims between multiple parties; and certain provisions concerning the appointment and revocation of arbitrators in the event of consolidation of the proceedings. Unless parties have agreed otherwise, these provisions only apply to arbitrations commenced under arbitration agreements concluded after 1 June 2013.18

The upward trend of arbitration in Finland

The FAI’s launch of the current Rules in 2013 prompted a rapid increase in the number of arbitration cases filed with the FAI. The statistics of the FAI indicate that in 2013 the FAI had an all-time record of 80 requests for arbitration filed, up from 69 requests in 2012.19 While the number of requests in 2014 dropped to 63, the monetary value of cases increased significantly from previous years.20 The upward trend appears to be continuing in 2015: at the time of writing (August 2015), the FAI has had 32 requests for arbitration filed. In addition, 22 per cent of all FAI arbitration cases in 2014 had an international dimension (ie, at least one party is domiciled abroad).21

Along with the FAI Rules, Finland’s progressive and pro-­arbitration legislative framework contributes towards making Finland an attractive and arbitration-friendly seat. Both domestic and international arbitration proceedings in Finland are governed by the 1992 Arbitration Act, as amended (the Arbitration Act).22 The Arbitration Act largely mirrors the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (as amended in 2006). Finland has further ratified and enacted the 1958 New York Convention, and ratified the ICSID Convention.

The FAI drives gender diversity when appointing arbitrators

In conjunction with the reformation of the FAI Rules, the FAI also considerably internationalised the composition of its board by appointing a number of distinguished and prominent international arbitration practitioners from various jurisdictions. Consequently, the current FAI Board has considerable expertise in appointing high-quality arbitrators in domestic and cross-border disputes.

  • In the appointment of arbitrators, the FAI Rules require the FAI board to consider:
  • any qualifications required of the arbitrator by the agreement of the parties;
  • the nature and circumstances of the dispute;
  • the nationality of the parties and of the prospective arbitrator;
  • the language of the arbitration;
  • the seat of arbitration and the law or rules of law applicable to the substance of the dispute; and
  • any other relevant circumstances.23

Where the parties are of different nationalities, the FAI Rules now confirm the FAI’s established practice of not appointing a sole or a presiding arbitrator from the same domicile as one of the parties.24

In addition to ensuring that all arbitrators appointed in both domestic and international disputes have sufficient experience, expertise and other relevant qualifications to serve as an arbitrator in the specific case, the FAI Board has proclaimed to be ‘mindful of the importance of expanding the ‘pool of arbitrators’ to include ‘younger arbitration practitioners who are known for their talent, efficiency and user-friendliness’ and dedicated to promoting gender diversity.25

In fact, the statistics of the FAI show that, in 2014, 20 per cent of the arbitrators appointed by the FAI Board were female, whereas 80 per cent were male.26 In ad hoc cases, the FAI Board appointed a slightly higher percentage of female arbitrators in 2014: 29 per cent of the arbitrators were female. By comparison, 88 per cent of all the arbitrators confirmed by the FAI (including party-nominated ones) in 2014 were male and 12 per cent were female. The number of appointed female arbitrators is set to increase in 2015: at the time of writing (August 2015), 33 per cent of all arbitrators appointed by the FAI Board, including arbitrators in ad hoc cases, have been female.

Finnish arbitration has traditionally been expeditious and cost-efficient

The first Arbitration Rules of the FAI, dated November 1910, already centred on such contemporary principles of arbitration as expeditious dispute resolution,27 impartiality of arbitrators28 and confidentiality of the proceedings.29 One of the key objectives of the 1993 Rules was also to enable expeditious and economic arbitration process.

In fact, the FAI has a track record of promoting resolution of disputes expeditiously and in a cost-effective manner. Even before the launch of the current FAI Rules, for several consecutive years, the average duration of a case resolved under the auspices of the FAI was less than a year.30 The statistics of the FAI show that the average duration of a case in 2014 was just nine months.31 In fact, the FAI Rules require the tribunal to render its final award within nine months from the receipt of the case file from the FAI.32

The FAI Board’s recorded decisions illustrate that the FAI Rules work well in practice

Since the launch of the current FAI Rules in 2013, the FAI has published several decisions of the FAI Board primarily relating to the consolidation of arbitrations and the FAI Boards’ jurisdiction to administer a case under the FAI Rules, particularly in the context of multi-contract and multiparty arbitrations.33 These published decisions provide a useful guidance on the practical application of the FAI Rules. The most noteworthy decisions of the FAI Board are summarised below.

The FAI Board’s first decision on the consolidation of arbitrations under article 13 of the FAI Rules

Article 13 of the FAI Rules provides for consolidation of closely connected arbitrations on conditions that resemble those of article 10 of the ICC Rules.34 However, in contrast with the ICC Rules, article 13 of the FAI Rules allows the consolidation of arbitrations irrespective of whether the arbitrations are between the same or different parties. Article 13 thus caters for a relatively flexible consolidation regime.

However, in the reported FAI Board’s decision concerning the consolidation of closely connected arbitrations, the FAI Board appears to have adopted a rather restrictive approach in its application of article 13.35 While it may be far too early to draw definite conclusions from the first and so far only decision, it nevertheless indicates the FAI Board’s current stance on consolidation in similar cases. The FAI Board has advised that:

the Board is likely to accept a request for consolidation mainly in cases where the arbitrations are pending between the same parties and they are based on the same arbitration agreement. Conversely, unless all parties expressly agree to consolidation, it may be anticipated that arbitrations will rarely be consolidated if the parties are different and the proceedings are based on different arbitration agreements. Consolidation is also unlikely if different arbitrators have already been confirmed in the different arbitrations, absent special reasons to the contrary.36

Background

Article 13 entitles a party involved in multiple arbitrations to request that the FAI board have the arbitrations consolidated into a single arbitration if:

  • all the parties agree;
  • the claims are made under the same arbitration agreement; or
  • the claims are made under different agreements but in connection with ‘the same legal relationship’ and the agreements do not contain ‘contradictory provisions that would render the consolidation impossible’.37

The FAI Board has sole discretion to decide on the consolidation of arbitration proceedings. The FAI Rules nevertheless oblige the FAI board to take into account:

  • the identity of the parties;
  • the connections between the claims made in the different arbitrations; and
  • whether the arbitrators have been confirmed or appointed in any of the arbitrations, and if so, whether the same or different persons have been confirmed or appointed.38

Where the board accepts the request for joinder or consolidation, ‘all parties will be deemed to have waived their right to nominate an arbitrator’, and the board has the power to revoke the confirmation or appointment of arbitrators and proceed to appoint the tribunal in accordance with article 19.39

The FAI Board’s decision on consolidation

Party A had simultaneously commenced two separate FAI arbitration proceedings:

  • Arbitration Case No. 1 against Party B (a limited liability company) and party C (a natural person and the sole owner and manager of company B), arising from a shareholders’ agreement between party A, party B and party C concerning the ownership and governance of company D (Arbitration Case 1); and
  • Arbitration Case No. 2 against party B arising from a share purchase agreement concerning the sale and transfer by party A of its shares in company D to party B (Arbitration Case 2).

In Arbitration Case 1, party A claimed damages from party B and party C for a breach of the shareholders’ agreement on the basis that party B and party C had failed to inform party A of certain circumstances that would have materially affected party A’s judgment in setting the sale price for its shares in company D. In Arbitration Case 2, party A claimed damages from party B for a breach of the share purchase agreement on similar basis. Party A further requested the FAI Board to consolidate the two arbitration proceedings. Party B and party C objected to party A’s request.

The FAI Board dismissed party A’s request for consolidation on the basis that:

  • party B and party C had opposed party A’s request for reasons that could not be regarded as obstructive or dilatory;
  • the parties to the different arbitrations were different, albeit closely related;
  • Arbitration Case 1 and Arbitration Case 2 were based on different arbitration clauses, which were not fully compatible, particularly with regard to the language requirements; and
  • party A, party B and party C had all informed the FAI that, in the event that these cases were not consolidated, they agreed to have the same arbitral tribunal in both arbitration cases.

The latter ground was the most decisive factor in the FAI Board’s reasoning, as the FAI Board considered that ‘most of the benefits of consolidation could effectively be achieved without any need to actually consolidate the proceedings’.40

The FAI Board’s decisions on determinations of jurisdiction under article 14 of the FAI Rules

Article 14 determines the conditions for the FAI Board’s jurisdiction to administer a case under the FAI Rules. The wording of article 14 largely mirrors that of article 6(4) of the ICC Rules. Article 14.1 applies where claims are brought in a single arbitration under one arbitration agreement. In such case, the board must be ‘prima facie satisfied that an arbitration agreement under the Rules that binds the parties may exist’.41

Conversely, article 14.2 determines the FAI Board’s jurisdiction to administer a case under the FAI Rules, where claims are made under multiple contracts or different arbitration agreements. In such cases, the FAI board must be prima facie satisfied that:

a)  the arbitration agreements under which those claims are made do not contain contradictory provisions; and

b)  all the parties to the arbitration may have agreed that those claims can be determined together in a single arbitration.42

In relation to the FAI Board’s jurisdiction in the case of multi-contract arbitrations under article 14.2 of the FAI Rules, the FAI Board has remarked:

the closer (i) the substantive relatedness between the different contracts containing the different arbitration agreements, and (ii) the connectivity between the different claims based on the different contracts and arbitration clauses, the higher the likelihood that the Board will find that the prima facie test under Article 14.2(b) is satisfied.43

The FAI Rules nevertheless preserve the arbitral tribunal’s Kompetenz-Kompetenz to decide on its own jurisdiction by providing that the board’s decision to allow the arbitration to proceed under article 14 is not binding on the arbitral tribunal.44 However, if the board rejects the request for joinder, the applicant’s only remedy is to request a domestic court to rule on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

FAI Board’s decisions allowing the arbitration to proceed regardless of a jurisdictional objection

In Case 50/2013,45 the parties had concluded two different, albeit related contracts: an original purchase agreement; and a subsequent agreement, which modified certain terms of the purchase agreement. The purchase agreement did not contain any dispute resolution clause, whereas the subsequent agreement contained an FAI arbitration clause. Party A sought compensation from party B for an alleged breach of a non-compete obligation under the purchase agreement. Party B raised a jurisdictional plea, claiming that the dispute under the purchase agreement could not be settled by FAI arbitration becuase the arbitration clause covered only disputes relating to the subsequent agreement and the subsequent agreement did not impose any non-compete obligations upon party B.

The FAI Board allowed the arbitration in Case 50/2013 to proceed under article 14.1 of the FAI Rules on the basis that there was prima facie evidence pointing to a possible existence of a binding arbitration agreement. The subsequently appointed sole arbitrator concurred with the FAI Board’s determination. Following Party B’s jurisdictional claim, the sole arbitrator issued a separate decision confirming jurisdiction on the grounds that:

1)  the purchase agreement and the subsequent agreement constituted de facto a single economic transaction; and

2)  absent special reasons to the contrary, commercial contracting parties cannot ordinarily be presumed to have intended that disputes arising out of different dispute resolution procedures.46

In Case 55/2013,47 a jurisdictional dispute arose between two Finnish companies in relation to an arbitration clause that was set forth in a draft agreement that had not been signed by either one of the parties. The respondent, party B, contested FAI’s jurisdiction on the grounds that it had neither accepted the substantive terms of the drafted agreement nor consented to the arbitration clause contained in it. The FAI Board allowed the arbitration to proceed. On the basis of the documentary evidence, the FAI Board was prima facie satisfied that an arbitration agreement binding on the parties ‘may exist’ within the meaning of article 14.1.

The subsequently appointed three-member arbitral tribunal issued a separate jurisdictional decision confirming that the parties were bound by FAI arbitration agreement contained in the draft agreement. In its reasoning, the arbitral tribunal first noted that the doctrine of separability is ‘firmly established in the Finnish arbitration law and practice’.

The tribunal proceeded to consider that the arbitration agreement must nonetheless fulfil the ‘written form’ requirement under section 3 of the Finnish Arbitration Act (967/1992). Pursuant to this section, the arbitration agreement is deemed to be in writing if it is contained in a document signed by the parties or in an exchange of ‘telegrams or telexes or other such documents produced in a corresponding manner’.

On the basis of the evidentiary record, the tribunal was satisfied that by having exchanged emails, whereby the parties had agreed to insert an FAI arbitration clause in the future agreement, the parties had formed a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement between themselves. The arbitral tribunal concluded:

it is, however, another issue whether or not the claims to be mad and the relief sought in these proceedings are covered by the arbitration agreement so formed (‘scope of the arbitration agreement’). Such objections may be raised first once a Statement of Claim with sufficient specification and elaboration has been submitted in these proceedings. Once so submitted the Respondent may raise objections that any of the claims made are not within the scope of the arbitration agreement ... This Procedural Order and Decision is without prejudice to any such objection or contention raised by the Respondent.48

FAI Board’s prima facie jurisdiction decision, dated 14 November 2014, allowing a single arbitration against two separate parties to proceed under three different arbitration agreements

Parties A and B had entered into a joint venture C. In connection with the joint venture transaction, party A and party B had also entered into a shareholders’ agreement regarding the ownership and governance of joint venture C. At the time of entering into the joint venture, party A and joint venture C had also entered into a business purchase agreement, whereby party A agreed to sell and transfer certain of its assets to joint venture C. Party B was also a party to the purchase agreement as party B had issued a guarantee for 50 per cent of joint venture C’s monetary obligations owed towards party A.

The shareholders’ agreement and the purchase agreement contained effectively similar arbitration clauses, with the exception of the provision concerning the number of arbitrators. The arbitration agreement in the guarantee issued by party B, in turn, referred to the arbitration clause in the purchase agreement. The arbitration clause in the shareholders’ agreement stipulated that any disputes were to be referred to a panel of three arbitrators, while the arbitration agreement in the purchase agreement was silent as to the number of arbitrators.

Party A initiated arbitration proceedings against party B and joint venture C claiming damages for breach of both the shareholders’ agreement and the purchase agreement as well as breach of party B’s guarantor obligations under the purchase agreement. Party A requested all the claims to be heard in single proceedings before a three-member tribunal. In support of its request, party A relied on the following grounds:

  • parties A and B and joint venture C were parties to both the shareholders’ agreement and the purchase agreement and, thus, were bound by arbitration clauses under both contracts;
  • both arbitration clauses were effectively similar;
  • reasons for procedural efficiency favoured the determination of all claims raised under both contracts in one single arbitration;
  • although the arbitration agreement in the purchase agreement was silent as to the number of arbitrators, the high monetary value of the case favoured the appointment of three arbitrators.

Party B and joint venture C failed to submit an answer to party A’s request for arbitration and thus the FAI Board was required to make a jurisdictional decision pursuant to article 14.2. The FAI Board allowed the arbitration to proceed against party B and joint venture C under article 14.2 of the FAI Rules on the basis that the FAI Board was prima facie satisfied that the arbitration clauses invoked by party A did not contain contradictory provisions and that all the parties to the arbitration were deemed to have agreed that party A’s claims can be determined together in a single arbitration.49 Shortly after the FAI Board’s decision the parties settled the arbitration. Consequently, the arbitrators were never appointed in the case and, thus, the jurisdictional issue was not decided upon by an arbitral tribunal.

The FAI Board’s negative jurisdictional decision, published on 2 March 2015, refusing to allow a counterclaim to proceed (Case 47/2013)

Party A and party B had simultaneously entered into two separate yet related contracts: a sales contract relating to the sale by party A of certain equipment to party B; and a service contract relating to said equipment. Both contracts contained an FAI arbitration clause providing for an appointment of a three-member arbitral tribunal.

The respective arbitration clauses in the sales contract and the service contract nevertheless differed from each other with respect to the method of appointing the presiding arbitrator as well as the language of arbitration. The arbitration clause in the sales contract was silent on the language of arbitration and stipulated that the two party-appointed arbitrators were to nominate the presiding arbitrators. In contrast, the arbitration clause in the service contract prescribed Finnish as the language of arbitration and provided for the appointment of all arbitrators in accordance with the FAI Rules, meaning that the parties themselves would nominate the presiding arbitrator.

Party A initiated arbitral proceedings against party B concerning the sales contract. In party B’s answer to party A’s request for arbitration, party B denied all the claims brought against it and raised a counterclaim against party A in relation to the service contract.

Article 12 of the FAI Rules enables claims arising out of or in connection with more than one contract to be heard in a single arbitration, provided that the jurisdictional provisions under article 14 are met.50

Party A objected to the counterclaim being resolved in the same proceedings on the basis that the jurisdictional requirements of article 14.2(a) and (b) were not satisfied.

The FAI Board sustained party A’s objection and refused to allow party B’s counterclaim proceed in the proceedings. The FAI Board reasoned that:

  • although party B was willing to agree on the selection of the presiding arbitrator in the same manner both in relation to party A’s main claim and party B’s counterclaim, party A could not be forced to accept party B’s proposal as the arbitration clauses in the sales contract and the service contract provided for a different appointment mechanism;
  • party A could not be deemed to have consented to the settlement of its claim under the sales contract in proceedings conducted in the Finnish language merely on the basis that the arbitration clause in the sales contract did not explicitly specify the language of arbitration. The FAI Board reasoned that, while there was no direct contradiction between the respective language requirements in the arbitration clauses, party A’s insistence on having the arbitration conducted in English was well-founded considering that party A and party B were of different nationalities, the sales contract was drafted in English, all pre and post-contractual correspondence between the parties had been drafted in English and party A had no command of the Finnish language; and
  • although the sales contract and the service contract were concluded simultaneously and between the same parties, their subject matter and material terms were quite different and unrelated to each other. Correspondingly, party A’s claim under the sales contract and party B’s counterclaim under the service contract were distinct and unrelated to each other. This, coupled with the substantive differences between the arbitration clauses in the different contracts, in the FAI Board’s view meant that party A could not be deemed to have consented to the resolution of the different claims arising out of the sales contract and the service contract in a single arbitration.51

Notes

  1. http://arbitration.fi.
  2. 2013 Arbitration Rules of the Finland Chamber of Commerce (2013 FAI Rules), available at http://arbitration.fi/rules_eng.
  3. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 25.3
  4. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 29.1.
  5. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 30.1.
  6. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 39.1.
  7. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 42.
  8. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 42.
  9. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 33.3.
  10. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 33.2.
  11. 2013 FAI Rules, at articles 10-14.
  12. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 36.5 and Appendix III.
  13. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 36.
  14. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 49.
  15. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 25.5.
  16. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 33.
  17. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 25.6.
  18. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 52.1
  19. http://arbitration.fi/the-arbitration-institute/statistics.
  20. FAI commentary on 2014 statistics, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/03/13/fai-statistics-2014.
  21. http://arbitration.fi/the-arbitration-institute/statistics.
  22. Arbitration Act 967/1992, available in English (Unofficial translation) at www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/1992/en19920967.pdf.
  23. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 21.5
  24. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 21.6.
  25. FAI commentary on 2014 statistics, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/03/13/fai-statistics-2014.
  26. FAI commentary on 2014 statistics, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/03/13/fai-statistics-2014.
  27. First Arbitral Rules of the FAI dated 1910, at section 11.
  28. First Arbitral Rules of the FAI dated 1910, at section 10.
  29. First Arbitral Rules of the FAI dated 1910, at section 16.
  30. http://arbitration.fi/en/statistics. The 1993 Rules already provided for a rather ambitious time limit of 12 months for the rendering of the final award (1993 FAI Rules, at section 38).
  31. http://arbitration.fi/en/statistics.
  32. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 42. The FAI may nevertheless extend the arbitral tribunal’s nine-month time limit for the rendering of the final award upon a reasoned request of the arbitral tribunal.
  33. The reported decisions of the FAI Board, available at http://arbitration.fi/category/fai-cases.
  34. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 13.
  35. FAI Board’s First Ruling on the Consolidation of Arbitrations under Article 13, published on 4 May 2015, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/05/04/fai-boards-first-ruling-on-the-consolidation-of-arbitrations-under-article-13.
  36. FAI Board’s First Ruling on the Consolidation of Arbitrations under Article 13, published on 4 May 2015, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/05/04/fai-boards-first-ruling-on-the-consolidation-of-arbitrations-under-article-13.
  37. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 13.1.
  38. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 13.2.
  39. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 13.4.
  40. FAI Board’s First Ruling on the Consolidation of Arbitrations under article 13, published on 4 May 5.2015, at page 8, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/05/04/fai-boards-first-ruling-on-the-consolidation-of-arbitrations-under-article-13.
  41. FAI Board’s Negative Jurisdictional Decision under article 14.2 Refusing to Allow the Counterclaim to Proceed in the Arbitration, published on 2 March 2015, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/03/02/fai-boards-negative-jurisdictional-decision-article-14-2-refusing-allow-counterclaim-proceed-arbitration.
  42. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 14.1.
  43. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 14.2.
  44. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 14.3.
  45. Two Decisions by the FAI Board and Arbitral Tribunal Allowing the Arbitration to Proceed Regardless of a Jurisdictional Objection, published on 26 February 2015, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/02/26/two-decisions-fai-board-arbitral-tribunal-allowing-arbitration-proceed-regardless-jurisdictional-objection.
  46. Two Decisions by the FAI Board and Arbitral Tribunal Allowing the Arbitration to Proceed Regardless of a Jurisdictional Objection, published on 26 February 2015, at page 2, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/02/26/two-decisions-fai-board-arbitral-tribunal-allowing-arbitration-proceed-regardless-jurisdictional-objection.
  47. Two Decisions by the FAI Board and Arbitral Tribunal Allowing the Arbitration to Proceed Regardless of a Jurisdictional Objection, published on 26 February 2015, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/02/26/two-decisions-fai-board-arbitral-tribunal-allowing-arbitration-proceed-regardless-jurisdictional-objection.
  48. Two Decisions by the FAI Board and Arbitral Tribunal Allowing the Arbitration to Proceed Regardless of a Jurisdictional Objection, published on 26 February 2015, at page 4, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/02/26/two-decisions-fai-board-arbitral-tribunal-allowing-arbitration-proceed-regardless-jurisdictional-objection.
  49. Prima Facie Jurisdictional Decision by the FAI Board Allowing a Single Arbitration Initiated against Two Separate Parties on the Basis of Three Different Arbitration Agreements to Proceed, published on 14 November 2014, available at http://arbitration.fi/2014/11/14/prima-facie-jurisdictional-decision.
  50. 2013 FAI Rules, at article 12.
  51. FAI Board’s Negative Jurisdictional Decision under article 14.2 Refusing to Allow the Counterclaim to Proceed in the Arbitration, published on 2 March 2015, available at http://arbitration.fi/2015/03/02/fai-boards-negative-jurisdictional-decision-article-14-2-refusing-allow-counterclaim-proceed-arbitration.