A disappointed party cannot bring an action to compel arbitration against the arbitration administrator in a court of law under International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Rules without offending the principle of arbitral immunity, according to a federal district court in New York.

In Global Gold Mining, LLC v. Robinson, No. 07 Civ. 10492(GEL), 2008 WL 336821 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2008), Global entered into a stock purchase contract for the acquisition of an Armenian corporation with its three stockholders. The contract had a provision for arbitration with the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

Global later filed a demand for arbitration with the ICC against the three stockholders and a fourth, non-signatory alleged stockholder. Pursuant to the ICC Rules, the ICC's court ruled on the question of arbitrability once the stockholders did not respond, and declared the dispute arbitrable as to the three signatories, but not as to the non-signatory.

Global then petitioned a New York trial court to order the ICC to refer the dispute with the non-signatory to arbitration. According to Global, the ICC arbitration rules allowed for "judicial review" of the ICC's arbitrability decisions. The ICC removed the matter to federal court.

The Court observed that the ICC Rules clearly provided that the initial question of arbitrability was to be decided by the ICC Court, that its negative decision ended the matter within that forum, and it returned the issue of arbitrability to the state or federal courts. While the Court recognized that it had the authority to address the issue of arbitrability once the ICC had made a preliminary negative finding, it emphasized that the rules only allowed the disappointed party to petition for a determination of arbitrability with the Court if the party resisting arbitration was named as the adverse party, not with the ICC named as the adverse party.

According to the Court, there was no basis in the ICC Rules or in any court precedent for bringing the action to compel arbitration against the ICC as the arbitral organization. Furthermore, it offended notions of arbitral immunity, since the administrator's only role was to render neutral judgment.