The Pros and Cons of Emergency Arbitration
This article examines the speed, costs and confidentiality of emergency arbitration, as well as the enforceability of the relief, by comparing emergency arbitration rules and practice with court-ordered interim measures. In Finland and Sweden it is rather easy, quick and inexpensive to apply for and be granted court-ordered interim measures. This article discusses whether arbitration users benefit from the possibility to apply for interim measures from an emergency arbitrator instead of a court.
Court-ordered interim measures have many advantages compared to arbitrator-ordered relief: a court order is also available against third parties, it can be ordered without hearing the counterparty and it can be enforced effectively. Due to these advantages, the parties are likely to prefer court-ordered measures to emergency arbitration. However, in certain situations emergency arbitration may be more attractive to the applicant party: for example the object of the relief may be located in a jurisdiction where effective court assistance is not available and the applicant may be granted the relief without setting an advance security. Confidentiality is also better secured in emergency arbitration.