The claimant and the respondent were parties to a joint venture agreement.

While the claimant and the respondent had signed the arbitration agreement, a company (the sole shareholder of the respondent), the individual shareholders of that company, and the wholly owned subsidiaries of the claimant had not.

Both the country of the claimant and that of the respondent were States Parties to the CISG.

The Court of Appeal directed that all issues between the claimant and the respondent be referred to arbitration.

The claimant (main contractor) appealed against the decision of a lower court, which had referred various disputes between the claimant and the respondent (sub contractor) to arbitration.

The claimant, a Hungarian company, and the respondent, an Austrian company, signed a contract for the sale of containers.

The respondent objected that the claimant was barred, because the matter had already been settled by the arbitral award.

The claimant requested the arbitral court to ascertain whether a valid contract had been concluded between the claimant and the respondent for the sale of shares in a Hungarian limited liability company.

The claimant, a Hong Kong company, and the respondent, a German company, had concluded a general agreement for the exclusive delivery and distribution of Chinese goods.

The claimant party shall notify the respondent party that it is referring a dispute to arbitration pursuant to article 33 of the Convention.

The claimant served a notice of default under the joint venture agreement on the ground that the respondent was in breach of the agreement.

The respondent could not be exculpated by proving that the damage was owing to an act or omission of the claimant (article 66 CISG).

The Hungarian claimant and the Italian respondent agreed that Hungarian law would govern their contract. The contract contained the elements of both a sales and an agency agreement.

The claimant argued that the respondent had taken a step in the proceedings when it served a request for discovery of documents in the action.

The respondent set off against this claim a damage claim for lost profit owing to the termination of the business relation with the claimant and refused to pay.

The arbitral tribunal also held that the respondent apos s damage claim was not precluded under article 79 CISG since the financial difficulties of the claimant apos s Chinese manufacturer were within the sphere of the claimant apos s responsibility.

Under this agreement, the claimant was responsible for the business relations with Chinese manufacturers while the respondent was responsible for the distribution of the goods in Europe.

Owing to financial difficulties, a Chinese manufacturer could not deliver the ordered goods to the claimant, who consequently could not fulfill its contractual obligation to the respondent.

The dispute arose out of a charter party entered into by the claimant and the respondent, providing for arbitration under the rules of the German Maritime Arbitration Association (GMAA) in Hamburg.

In 2001, after the award had finally been formally served on the respondent and had been registered with the German Courts, the claimant applied to have it declared enforceable in Germany.

The ensuing dispute concerning this decision led to a temporary injunction by a DLV arbitral tribunal ordering the respondent to authorize the claimant to take part in the tournament.

At the same time the Court deemed that the claimant, by obeying the procedural terms set up by the respondent, had refrained from pursuing its rights before State Courts.

It further held that the respondent could set off against the claimant a claim resulting from the breach of the relevant sales contract but not from the general distribution agreement.

On the basis of article 8 (1) MAL, the claimant sought a stay in favour of arbitration with regard to the action brought by the respondent before the Queen's Bench of Alberta.

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent

When the respondent sold its shares in the LP to a third company, the claimant, one of the partners, considered this to be a violation of the non competition clause of the LP agreement and commenced arbitration proceedings claiming damages.

The dispute arose out of a reorganization of the German Hockey League by the respondent, the German Hockey Association ( the Association'), as a result of which the claimant, a hockey club, was downgraded to the second league.

Plaintiff (respondent) commenced an action against defendant (appellant) and McElhanney.

It also held that, if the respondent refused to pay because it set off an alleged claim for damages, the claimant did not have to fix an additional period of time for payment according to article 63 CISG.

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent as stated above, the Administrative Law Unit represents the respondent at all stages of the appeals process.

Though the respondent did not initiate any annulment proceedings, the three month period did not expire as the claimant commenced the enforcement proceedingsThe Court, however, rejected all the respondent's defences, since it deemed a valid arbitration agreement to exist.

When the claimant applied to have the award rendered in its favour declared enforceable according to 1060 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ZPO), based on articles 35 36 MAL, the respondent raised several defences, all of which were rejected.

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the technical mission to Kuwait in 2004 and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

Both the Kuwaiti claimant and the Palestinian claimant were interviewed during the December 2004 technical mission to Kuwait and each claimant was asked to comment on the assertions and evidence submitted by the other.

Upon challenge by the respondent, the arbitration tribunal declared not to have any jurisdiction as in its views the respondent had validly terminated the arbitration agreement.

The business loss page of the individual claimant was completed in the name of an E4 claimant, and the individual claimant had originally provided documents indicating a connection between him and the company.

It records basic details about the claimant and notes what available evidence, if any, was provided by the claimant.

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

The respondent argued that, on the basis of articles 16 (1), 34 (2) (a) (i) and 36 (1) (a) (i) MAL, the arbitral tribunal was not competent to hear the disputes, because the agreements containing the arbitration clause were terminated following a breach of such agreements by the claimant.

(m) Competing claimant means

(gg) Competing claimant means

The Claimant states that

CLAIM NUMBER, CLAIMANT NAME AND CATEGORY OF LOSS

The respondent paid for only a part of the delivered goods.

The respondent objected, invoking the Polish judgment and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement.