Choosing court or arbitration
When drafting a contract, or sometimes after a dispute arises, parties choose between court litigation and arbitration. Arbitration offers a neutral forum, privacy to the extent the rules and agreement provide, and broad international enforcement under the New York Convention. Litigation offers appeals, public procedures, and court powers over third parties that an arbitral tribunal may lack. The right choice depends on where the parties and their assets are, what kind of dispute is likely, and how much finality the parties want. A clause that tries to have both without saying clearly which applies when tends to produce a dispute of its own.
Where courts and tribunals meet
Even in arbitration, courts play a role. A court may be asked to compel arbitration, to stay a lawsuit filed in breach of an arbitration clause, or to grant interim relief that preserves assets or evidence. After the award, courts at the seat may hear a request to set it aside, while courts elsewhere decide whether to enforce it. Parallel proceedings sometimes lead one side to ask a court to stop the other from pursuing a case abroad, a request courts approach with caution. Keep the contract, the clause, and every filing from each forum together, since consistency across proceedings matters.
Building a coordinated strategy
In a first consultation we look at whether an arbitration clause applies, whether any court cases are pending or threatened, and where enforcement would ultimately take place. We discuss how to respond if the other side files in court despite the clause, or tries to resist arbitration you have started. If both litigation and arbitration are in play, we plan how the steps in each will interact and which deadlines run in which forum. The goal is a coherent strategy rather than separate fights in different places.
