MAC Dispute resolution is designed to resolve any issue, in which a Trading Party believes an organisation, either MOSL or another Trading Party, has failed to comply in accordance with their obligations, as stipulated in the Market Arrangements Code (MAC). A Non-Trading Dispute follows the same procedure as that contained within the MAC Dispute. The dispute will have the same process, but will differ in terms of the scope.
The information below relates to both MAC and Non-Trading Disputes. Alternative dispute processes (MO Disputes and/or Trading Disputes) are available where:
• a Trading Party has identified an issue with Settlement, where the issue is not caused by a Trading Party data item; or
• a Trading Party has identified an issue with a Primary Charge, where the issue is caused by another Trading Party’s data item.
Both MAC and Non-Trading Disputes should be raised and managed through Kissflow. You will need to complete all necessary fields as part of your submission and submit any attachments you believe strengthen the cause for raising a dispute.
Prior to raising a MAC/Non-Trading Dispute, you should first you should first raise a Statutory Query with MOSL to confirm any differences of interpretation.
If you believes another Trading Party is not acting in alignment with the codes governing the market, you should attempt to resolve the issue directly with the associated disputing party prior to raising the dispute.
The outcomes of either the MAC or Non-Trading Dispute will depend on the nature of your dispute, and the levels of escalation required through the MAC/Non-Trading Dispute resolution process. The overall decision will be determined either between the disputing parties or by arbitration, if a resolution is not possible. Outcomes can include, but are not limited to:
• Code change. If both parties agree that the section of code which has led to the dispute is ambiguous, a Code Change Proposal may be submitted to the Panel who will consider the change;
• Change in process. This may be a change to how MOSL or the Trading Party operates; and
• Rectification of previous errors. This may include revisions to previous determinations made by MOSL.
MOSL will be notified once the dispute has been submitted on Kissflow. Once received, the submission will be reviewed and the grounds of the dispute will be assessed by MOSL. Any additional attachments provided will also be reviewed at this stage. MOSL will validate the dispute by reviewing your submission against the following criteria:
• Establish the dispute submitted is not an MO dispute, i.e. does not relate to a MOSL error on Settlement;
• Establish the dispute submitted is not a Trading Dispute, i.e. does not relate to a data error by a Trading Party impacting Primary Charges;
• The nature of the dispute relates to the relevant sections of the Codes provided in the submission; and
• The Trading Party has not previously submitted the same dispute.
MOSL will make their decision on the validity of the dispute within five business days. If the dispute is considered valid, the disputing parties will have 10 business days to organise a meeting and attempt to resolve the dispute. MOSL will provide rationale for any MAC/Non-Trading Disputes that are rejected at this stage.
If your dispute gets rejected it will be closed in Kissflow and no further actions are required, unless you wish to raise another dispute. MOSL will provide rationale for your dispute being rejected, which will be available on your submission for you to review.
Once your dispute is accepted, you will need to work with MOSL to attempt to resolve your issue successfully. This can be done by:
• Working efficiently to make sure that all code obligated deadlines related to the dispute process are met
• Ensuring that you provide accurate data throughout the processing of your dispute
• Making sure you set up, and honour the dates of any scheduled meetings and that the appropriate individual attend all meetings
• Maintaining appropriate contact with MOSL, especially where MOSL is not a disputing party and is acting instead as a Case Manager. (Where MOSL is acting as a Case Manager, we will operate to a Code of Conduct to ensure complete neutrality.)
• Entering the dispute process in good faith and with an openness to reach a resolution.
Further details on the MAC Dispute Resolution process can be found in Sections 17.2 to 17.9 of the Market Arrangements Code. Additional Information concerning a Non-Trading Dispute can be found within Section 17 of the Business Terms.
The objective of arbitration is to obtain a fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal, without unnecessary delay or expense. If it has not been possible to resolve the dispute at three previous meetings, either disputing party can refer the dispute further to arbitration. This is done by submitting a written request to the The London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA). The disputing parties will have the opportunity to agree and nominate a sole arbitrator, who will review the dispute and come to an impartial decision. If the disputing parties are unable to agree on a nominated sole arbitrator, a request can be submitted to the Panel Chairman who will instead nominate a proposed sole arbitrator to the LCIA. In the event that neither party nominates a sole arbitrator to the LCIA within 20 Business Days of the filing of the response, the LCIA will nominate a sole arbitrator in accordance with the LCIA rules.
The decision of the sole arbitrator will be final and binding for all the disputing parties. In referring a dispute to arbitration, the disputing parties waive any right to challenge or appeal any outcome of the arbitration tribunal to the full extent permitted by law.
There are no fees associated with raising a dispute, however fees will be incurred if the dispute gets referred to arbitration. All parties involved will be jointly liable for paying costs, the total amount of which will be determined by the LCIA Court as its Schedule of Costs. The arbitration tribunal will determine the proportion of the total costs payable by each involved party. The tribunal may also recover expenses in connection with arbitration and further costs may be incurred as a result of rectification activities, which may arise as part of a dispute's resolution.
MOSL, as market operator, retains an overall responsibility to provide independent case management capabilities for disputes in the market. Where MOSL is also a disputing party, we will ensure that we maintain separation when dealing with the dispute in our capacity as Case Manager. We will also ensure that no one making decisions regarding the resolution is involved in the overall management of the dispute. In all cases, MOSL will operate to a Code of Conduct to ensure appropriate behaviour and neutrality.