ann out?, page-8

I suspect that there has been a misuse of the word "arbitration".

It is quite possible that the parties have been in either "Mediation or Conciliation" up until recently and that process did not achieve a resolution to the problem.


As a consequence the dispute will now move into "Arbitration" phase

For those who do not know the difference between "Mediation or Conciliation" and Arbitration , the simplistic answer is that in either a "Mediation or Conciliation" the parties arrive at a solution by negotiation between themselves,

Whereas in a Arbitration the decision is imposed by the Arbitrator, and the decision only subject to an Appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law.

In my opinion the parties have been in "Mediation or Conciliation" phase and now are moving into the formal Arbitration stage.

Given that it is close to Christmas and that an Arbitrator may not have "entered onto the refernce", and that a time table for communication of each parties position will need to be set down.

I am of the opinion that a realistic time frame for the matter to get into the hearing stage and then allowing sufficient time for a considered judgment, we may get a judgment some time in February or March 2010.

It MAY be quicker, but not knowing what the real issue is ( as BG sees it) I am unable to comment.

Having said that it does on face value appear to be a contract interpreation issue and that should not take long to determine that, as I have said before, it is not the outcome of the Arbitration that concerns me, it is what CTP will do if BG still refuse to be bound by the Arbitrators judgment and as a consequence repudiate the agreeemnt, will CTP sue in a Supreme Court for specific performance or for damages?.

That is where the realy expensive and time consuming fight begins.