The evolution of summary procedure in investment arbitration: past, present and future

The last 15 years have witnessed a substantial rise of summary procedure to gradually become more and more significant in the world of investment arbitration since ICSID Arbitration Rules first introduced it in 2006. Before the emergence of this procedure that allows early dismissal of claims, various states have criticized the time and costs needed to defend their position in investment proceedings. Against this background, the birth of summary procedure aims to help parties to save time and costs and avoid unnecessary consumption of parties’ resources by disposing of manifestly frivolous and unmeritorious at an early stage of the proceedings. This feature has captured much attention since major arbitration institutions started to adopt it, with ICSID being the pioneer, followed by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC). Given its increasing importance in investment disputes, the ICSID has lately published a series of Working Papers which, among many other things, proposed to enhance the rule on ‘manifest lack of legal merit’. This article aims to look back on the evolution of summary procedure in investment arbitration for the last 15 years by examining its genesis and development, the current regime, and tribunals’ application of this procedure in practice, the future contemplated by the ICSID proposed amendments.

13 Summary Procedure: (Articles 56 to 64)

This chapter examines the Summary Procedure under the CIETAC Rules, which resembles most expedited procedures of other institutions in that the arbitral procedure is expedited for cases with a relatively small amount in dispute or where the parties agree to the application of the special procedure. While the Summary Procedure can be highly efficient, there is always a tension between the need for efficient and expeditious dispute resolution and the right of parties to present their cases, and failure to afford a party the right to present case could give rise to an application to set aside or resist recognition and enforcement of an award. Articles 56 to 64 of the CIETAC Rules are designed to maintain the balance between efficiency and parties’ right to be heard. These articles set forth special provisions of the Summary Procedure. These special provisions include: the application; notice of arbitration; formation of the arbitral tribunal; defence and counterclaim; conduct of hearing; notice of oral hearing; time period for rendering the award; change of procedure; and context reference.

Some issues of summary procedure in the 2015 Civil Code: A comparative perspective

A summary procedure is understood as a special procedure simplifying the ordinary one to deal with civil disputes in a truncated process. This can help to reduce time and costs for the litigants and the State, cut down workload for the courts at all levels. However, since summary procedure is a new regulation which was first recorded in the 2015 Civil Code, its application has certain problems and therefore requiries specific guideline. The paper analyzes regulations on summary procedures in the 2015 Civil Code from the perspective of comparative law and suggests some recommendation for improvement.

The Effect of Guide Reading and Summary Procedure (GRASP) toward the Second year Students’ Reading Comprehensions at SMA Negeri 02 Tapung Hilir

<p><em>Guide reading and Summary Procedure (GRASP) is an innovation classroom procedure for teaching reading strategy, enable students to understand what they are reading and compose summaries of their reading. Type of this research is an experimental research with using quantitative data. It involved two class; they were experimental and control class. This research was conducted of the second year’s student at SMA Negeri 02 Tapung Hilir. The population of this research was conducted the second year’s students by using cluster sampling that consists of 52 person. The data collection technique has done by using questionnaires. The result of this research, it was found that the mean of the student’s pre-test score that consists of 55.23, while the mean of the students’ post-test score that consists of 76.15. So, there was increase point about 20.92 % from pre-test to post-test. And the other side t_obs was 3.31 and t_table was on the level of significant 1% with degree of freedom (df) = 50 was 2,66 and on the level significant 5% with degree of freedom (df) = 50 was 2,00. It means that by using Guide Reading and Summary Procedure (GRAPS) strategy gave positive improvement to the students’ reading comprehension.</em></p>

Office Holder Claims

Office holder claims under the Insolvency Act 1986 present an important alternative, or additional, means of recovering assets in corporate insolvency cases. Section 212 provides a summary procedure that allows office holders, creditors, and contributories to bring claims against officers, former office holders and other persons involved in the promotion, formation, or management of the company. Section 213 provides for a civil remedy against directors and knowing parties for fraudulent trading; and section 214 enables claims to be brought against directors for ‘wrongful trading’ after a company should have entered liquidation or administration.