Brazil Brazil has been very slow to adopt arbitration as its courts often refuse to enforce agreements to arbitrate, especially prior to the passage of Brazilian law number 9.307 (amended by Law No. 13.129 in 2017), the Brazilian Arbitration Act, which was passed in 1996, today considered to be the fundamental law for arbitration within Brazil. Since its passage, though, Brazilian courts have been more willing to enforce agreements to arbitrate, though precedent only stipulates that courts can compel arbitration in disputes involving what the law refers to as "arbitrable patrimonial rights", presumed to relate only to tangible and intangible property disputes. Brazil also requires all arbitrators to refer non-arbitrable disputes to the competent court. Brazil further restricts all arbitration proceedings to be decided by an odd number of arbitrators.
Canada All provinces except for
Quebec have adopted an arbitration code similar to the
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law's Model Law. Quebec has opted instead to require that arbitrations would be subject to the province's own
Civil Code, including Quebec's Code of Civil Procedure. Arbitration in Canada is primarily administered by the
ADR Institute of Canada and the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre. Class action waivers lack a uniform policy across Canada, as the
Supreme Court of Canada has found that provincial legislation governed disputes, though in
Seidel v. TELUS Communications, the court found that because a class action waiver was attached to an invalid arbitration agreement, the class action waiver was void. The province of
Ontario, per the Consumer Protection Act of 2002, has banned class action waivers. A court of appeals in
British Columbia also found that class action waivers were unenforceable and unconscionable in
Pearce v. 4 Pillars Consulting Group due to the contract in question being a
standard form contract written by 4 Pillars and giving little bargaining power to Pearce. In
Uber Technologies Inc v Heller (2020), the Supreme Court found an arbitration clause requiring a
gig worker to litigate before the Dutch
International Chamber of Commerce void due to
unconscionability.
Mainland China China allows arbitration clauses to exist, though the
Supreme People's Court has found that an arbitration clause that does not specify an "arbitral commission" is invalid and unenforceable. An agreement to arbitrate in China, in addition to specifying a commission, must contain a declared intent to arbitrate as well as name the disputes to be arbitrated in order to be enforceable. In the event that one party questions the validity of an arbitration agreement and requests that a PRC court to determine the validity of the agreement, the court shall determine the validity of the agreement.
France French law generally supports arbitration, though declares that capacity, marriage and divorce cannot be arbitrated.
Germany German law excludes disputes over the rental of living space from any form of arbitration, while arbitration agreements with consumers are only considered valid if they are signed, and if the signed document does not bear any other content than the arbitration agreement.
England and Wales In
England and Wales it is not possible for parties to a contract to prevent courts from exercising their jurisdiction over contact disputes, but through what is known as a '''
Scott v. Avery clause''' they may require that a dispute be adjudicated by an arbitrator before submitting the matter to a court.
Poland Under Polish law, an arbitration clause (
zapis na sąd polubowny), governed by the Polish Code of Civil Procedure is a written agreement between parties to submit a specific dispute or disputes arising from a defined legal relationship -existing or future - to arbitration, thereby excluding the jurisdiction of state courts within that scope. The agreement must precisely identify either the subject matter of the dispute or the legal relationship from which the dispute has arisen or may arise. As a distinct, typically bilateral legal act, separate from the main contract, it has both procedural and substantive legal effects and is interpreted strictly. No implied terms or supplementation by witness evidence are allowed. Arbitrability under Polish law is defined relatively broadly. An arbitration agreement may be concluded in disputes concerning property rights and non-property rights, provided that the latter may be the subject of a judicial settlement.
United Arab Emirates The
United Arab Emirates generally supports arbitration clauses. The federation of kingdoms, however, poses limitations on their enforceability depending on the actions of the parties, and the UAE's courts have ruled that parties which engage in court proceedings waive their right to compel arbitration.
United States The
federal government has explicitly allowed arbitration clauses. The relevant law is found in the
Federal Arbitration Act, which permits compulsory and binding arbitration, under which parties give up the right to appeal an arbitrator's decision to a court. Historically, arbitration in the United States in the employment context was primarily used for disputes between unions and employers. Starting in 1991 with the
Gilmer decision this changed dramatically, expanding from 2.1 percent of the employers subject to mandatory arbitration clauses in 1992 to 53.9% in 2017. In 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFASASHA), which excludes these types of complaints from arbitration clauses, including retroactively. Congress also included a ban on class action waivers for claims covered under the act. == Fairness ==