- »(1) Where the parties have agreed that there is to be an umpire, they are free to agree what the functions of the umpire are to be, and in particular –
- a whether he is to attend the proceedings, and
- b when he is to replace the other arbitrators as the tribunal with power to make decisions, orders and awards.
- 2 If or to the extent that there is no such agreement, the following provisions apply.
- 3 The umpire shall attend the proceedings and be supplied with the same documents and other materials as are supplied to the other arbitrators.
- 4 Decisions, orders and awards shall be made by the other arbitrators unless and until they cannot agree on a matter relating to the arbitration.
- In that event they shall forthwith give notice in writing to the parties and the umpire, whereupon the umpire shall replace them as the tribunal with power to make decisions, orders and awards as if he were sole arbitrator.
- 5 If the arbitrators cannot agree but fail to give notice of that fact, or if any of them fails to join in the giving of notice, any party to the arbitral proceedings may (upon notice to the other parties and to the tribunal) apply to the court which may order that the umpire shall replace the other arbitrators as the tribunal with power to make decisions, orders and awards as if he were sole arbitrator.
- 6 The leave of the court is required for any appeal from a decision of the court under this section«
Det vil af citatet ses, at det centrale indhold af en umpire-model er, at de partsudpegede voldgiftsdommere i første omgang selv skal søge at nå til enighed om voldgiftsprocessen og sagens afgørelse, jf. sec 21(4), første led. Herved minder umpire-løsningen om referee-modellen, jf. ovenfor. Opstår der imidlertid uenighed mellem de partsudpegede voldgiftsdommere, er den udfyldende regel, et de skal orientere parterne og umpire herom, hvorefter de partsudpegede voldgiftsdommere fratræder og bliver »functus officio«, således at umpire træffer herefter afgørelse i tvisten som enevoldgiftsdommer. 352352. Oprindelig indebar modellen ofte, at de partsudpegede voldgiftsdommere, dersom de ikke kunne nå til enighed og overlod afgørelsen til den valgte umpire, skiftede rolle og agerede som advokat for den part, der havde udpeget dem. En sådan fremgangsmåde er utænkelig i moderne voldgiftsret henset til kravene om upartiskhed og uafhængighed af parterne.
Herved adskiller en umpire sig fundamentalt fra en referee, der, som nævnt, slutter sig til de partsudpegede voldgiftsdommere for at bryde en dead-lock som følge af uenighed mellem disse. Denne sondring svarer til Bkg. 193-06-19 nr. 59 om Den europæiske konvention om international