## Facts

- In March 1983, a Danish contractor (claimant) and an Egyptian subcontractor (respondent) entered into a contract for construction of an abattoir.
- Article 14 of the contract provided that “any disputes and deviations” would be settled by arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Zurich, Switzerland.
- A dispute arose, and the claimant commenced ICC arbitration in Zurich.
- The respondent refused to take part in the arbitral proceedings on the merits, but its counsel sent communications to the arbitrator raising objections to the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
- The respondent argued the arbitration clause was invalid under Egyptian law and public policy because neither the clause nor the contract named a specific arbitrator.
- The respondent also filed a lawsuit in Egypt and requested that the ICC arbitration in Zurich be stayed to allow the Egyptian court to rule.
- The tribunal proceeded and rendered a final award in 1988, later reported at XIV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 137.

## Issues

1. Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction under the parties’ ICC arbitration clause even though the clause did not name a specific arbitrator and the respondent alleged Egyptian law and public policy required such identification.
2. Whether the tribunal should stay or suspend the Zurich ICC arbitration because the respondent initiated parallel proceedings in an Egyptian court and sought a court ruling first.

## Decision

- The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction under the parties’ agreement providing for ICC arbitration in Zurich.
- The tribunal rejected the respondent’s contention that the clause was invalid merely because it did not name a specific arbitrator, treating the institutional mechanism for appointment under the ICC framework as sufficient.
- The tribunal declined to stay or suspend the ICC proceedings on the basis of the respondent’s Egyptian court action and proceeded with the arbitration.
- The tribunal issued a final award resolving the dispute notwithstanding the respondent’s limited participation in the arbitration.

## Legal Principles

- An agreement to arbitrate under institutional rules may be effective even if it does not identify a named arbitrator, because institutional rules can supply a workable method for appointment.
- An arbitral tribunal may determine its own jurisdiction when a party challenges the validity or effectiveness of the arbitration agreement.
- Parallel court litigation commenced by one party does not, by itself, require an ICC tribunal seated at the agreed place of arbitration to halt the arbitration; absent a binding legal basis for suspension, the tribunal may proceed.
- A tribunal may continue an arbitration and render a final award even where a respondent declines to participate on the merits, so long as the party has been given notice and an opportunity to be heard.

## Conclusion

Final Award in ICC Case No. 5294 arose from a Danish–Egyptian construction dispute with an ICC clause calling for arbitration in Zurich; the respondent objected to jurisdiction on the ground that Egyptian law and public policy required naming a specific arbitrator and sought a stay due to an Egyptian lawsuit, but the tribunal rejected those objections, proceeded with the arbitration, and rendered a final award.


Final Award in ICC Case No. 5294, XIV Y.B. Comm. Arb. 137 (1988)