The XAAC was selected as the arbitral institution in at least 3 international case(s) known by Jus Mundi (3 Commercial Arbitration). None of these cases are pending.
The XAAC has adopted to date 0 rules and 0 other documents available on Jus Mundi.
Jus Mundi’s algorithms detected 12 arbitration practitioners who acted as arbitrators, counsel or experts in cases administered by this institution.
- Keeneye Holdings Limited and New Purple Golden Resources Development Limited v. Gao Haiyan and Xie Heping, XAAC Case No. 2232 of 2009, Reasons for Decision of the Court of Appeal of the High Court of Hong Kong CACV 79/2011, 1 July 2009
Go Premium to unlock all institution analytics
The full access includes metrics on Status of Case, Role, Tribunal/Court/Institution, Applicable Treaty, Economic Sector.GO PREMIUM
List of Cases (3)
Unlock the list of cases - Go Premium
|Date||Case||Type of Case||Status||Economic sector||Rules||Seat of Arbitration||Applicable Law||Applicable Treaty|
|2020||Premium||Commercial Arbitration||Premium||Financial and insurance activities||XAAC Arbitration Rules (version not specified)||Xi'an||Unknown||Unknown|
|2009||Premium||Commercial Arbitration||Premium||Mining and quarrying, Professional, scientific and technical activities||XAAC Arbitration Rules (version not specified)||Unknown||Unknown||Unknown|
|2009||Premium||Commercial Arbitration||Premium||Financial and insurance activities||Unknown||Unknown||Unknown||Unknown|
The analytics displayed herein are based on the information collected by Jus Mundi. The information Jus Mundi relies on is by no means exhaustive and does not in any way presume the other activities of this profile.
For any questions relating to the publishing of a decision/award/document, write to us at firstname.lastname@example.org.