Login
(to save your search)




Last searches

No last search found

Search tips


Use the search field descriptions below to guide your simple search.

Advanced search


“Equation” search field (placed below field #21)
 
Allows to combine search fields using AND or OR combinations. Enter your keywords and/or make your selection from any of the drop-down menu fields in the “advanced search” web page. They will be automatically added to the “equation” search field.
 
“Order rows by” search field (placed below “equation” search field)
 
This field will organize results by either “date”−in decreasing order−, “Serial #”−alphabetically by country name, then by date in decreasing order−, or “party name(s)”−alphabeitcally−.
 
(1) Summary

Performs a search in the following fields: “nature of Model Law application (if not based on ML)”, “Key questions”, “Result”, and “Key propositions” (fields #12 to 15 below). To see an example of a summary, go to http://www.maldb.org/hpjlaw-76.html.
 
Quotation marks must be used when entering a search term containing more than one word. e.g. in order to search for decisions containing the terms *Model Law* AND *injunction*, choose “All words” from the drop-down menu and enter *“Model Law” injunction*. Similarly, in order to search for decisions containing the terms *Model Law* OR *injunction*, choose “At least one of these words” from the drop-down menu and enter *“Model Law” injunction*.
 
No quotation marks are needed to enter a phrase when using the “Exact phrase” or “Does not contain” drop-down menu search options.

(2) Full text

Performs a search in the full text of the decision and translation, where applicable.
 
Refer to search field “(1) Summary” above, for tips on using quotation marks.

(3) Serial #

Every case in the database has been assigned a serial number comprised of a country code followed by the date in which the decision was rendered. Where two decisions from the same country were rendered on the same day, letters have been assigned to distinguish them (e.g. CAN20070713A, Dell Computer Corp v Union des consommateurs; and CAN20070713B, Rogers Wireless Inc v Muroff).

The country codes are as follows: Australia (AUS), Austria (AUT), Bermuda (BER), Bulgaria (BUL), Canada (CAN), Chile (CHI), China (Hong Kong) (HK), Croatia (CRO), Germany (GER), Guatemala (GUA), India (IND), Ireland (IRE), Jordan (JOR), Kenya (KEN), Malaysia (MAL), Mexico (MEX), New Zealand (NZE), Nigeria (NIG), Paraguay (PAR), Peru (PER), Serbia (SER), Singapore (SIN), Spain (SPA), Tunisia (TUN), Turkey (TUR), Uganda (UGA) and the United Kingdom (UKI).

(4) Country

Performs a single or multiple country search:
 
-          For a single country search, select a country from the drop-down menu (refer to the Home page for a list of selected countries). Selecting a country triggers the court menu (field #5) to show courts from that country only.
 
-          For a multiple country search, select the desired countries while holding down the “Control” key on your keyboard.
 
(5) Court

Allows to search decisions of a given court after a country or set of countries has been selected. Only courts from that country or set of countries will appear in the court drop-down menu.

(6) International or domestic case

Establishes whether the case concerns a domestic or international arbitration, or whether it is impossible to establish this fact from the judgment.

(7) Seat of arbitration


Establishes the country where the arbitration was held. The menu allows to search decisions where the seat is unknown, or where this search field is not applicable.

(8) Arbitration rules

Establishes the rules applied in the arbitration. This field allows to select decisions where the applicable rules are unknown. The “other” category applies where the applicable rules are known but do not appear in the drop-down menu.

(9) Nature of application

This drop-down menu performs a search by type of application/procedural vehicle as permitted under the Model Law. It also allows to search arbitration-related decisions brought before the court by means of procedural vehicles not based on any Model Law provision.

(10) Party name(s)
 
Performs an exact search of any part of the style of cause of a case.
 
(11) Citation
 
Performs an exact search of any part of the citation of a case. Where available, the neutral citation has been used.

(12) Nature of Model Law application (if not based on ML)
 
Performs a search of the text which provides a brief description on the nature of the court application, where not based on a procedural vehicle expressly established under the Model Law (if applicable).

(13) Key questions
 
Performs a search of the main issues dealt with in the judicial decision.

(14)  Result
 
Performs a search of the procedural result of the judicial decision.

(15) Key propositions
 
Performs a search of the main holdings of a decision, as well as general propositions made by the court regarding arbitration or the Model Law.

(16) Foreign sources (ML issues)
 
Performs a search of decisions according to whether a court applied non-domestic legal sources to support its holding(s) on issues raised by the Model Law. For our purposes, “foreign sources” includes case-law from countries other than the one where the decision is being rendered, as well as international instruments used by the court to aid the interpretation of the Model Law, including the New York Convention on Recognition or Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

(17) Foreign sources (non-ML issues)
 
Performs a search of decisions according to whether the court used any non-domestic legal sources to support its holding(s) on issues not expressly raised by the Model Law.

(18) Model Law explicitly referred to
 
Performs a search of decisions according to whether the court expressly cites the Model Law.

(19) Travaux préparatoires explicitly referred to
 
Performs a search of decisions according to whether the court expressly cites the travaux préparatoires of the Model Law.
 
(20) Model Law provisions at issue
 
Performs a single/multiple search by Model Law provision(s).
 
For a simple search, simply select the desired Model Law provision.
 
For a multiple search, select multiple provisions by holding down the “control” key in your keyboard. The drop-down menu option “Contains” will provide decisions with at least one of the provisions selected. The drop-down menu option “All” will provide decisions containing all selected provisions.
 
If a judicial decision refers to Model Law articles 1, 7, 8, 16, 34 and/or 36 without specifying which paragraph(s) and/or subparagraph(s) it is dealing with, the article alone has been marked (e.g. article 8 would be marked, but not article 8(1) and/or article 8(2)). If a decision deals with an issue raised under a specific paragraph(s) and/or subparagraph(s), then both the paragraph(s) and/or subparagraph(s) in question and the article at issue have been marked (e.g. if the judicial decision deals with article 8(1), both 8(1) and 8 have been marked).
 
Where a decision has been rendered after the adoption of the 2006 amendments in a particular jurisdiction and deals with an issue that
 
(a)    falls under paragraph 7(2) to (6) as amended in 2006; provisions 7, 7(2)(1985), and 7(2) to (6)(2006) have been marked;
 
(b)   falls under article 17 and as amended in 2006; article 17, article 17(1985), and article 17(2006) have been marked;
 
(c)    falls under article(s) 17A-J as amended in 2006; article 17, article 17(1985), article 17(2006) and the relevant article(s) among 17A-J have been marked;
 
(d)   falls under paragraph 35(2) as amended in 2006; provisions 35, 35(2)(1985) and 35(2)(2006) have been marked;
 
(21) Date (YYYY-MM-DD)
 
Allows to search a decision by date or date range, by using the drop-down menu.