Friend of our site

MMA Headlines


Bleacher Report

MMA Fighting

MMA Torch

MMA Weekly

Sherdog (News)

Sherdog (Articles)

Liver Kick

MMA Mania

Bloody Elbow

MMA Ratings

Rating Fights

Yahoo MMA Blog

Search this site

Latest Articles

News Corner

MMA Rising

Audio Corner


Sherdog Radio

Eddie Goldman

Video Corner

Fight Hub

Special thanks to...

Link Rolodex

Site Index

To access our list of posting topics and archives, click here.

Friend of our site

Buy and sell MMA photos at MMA Prints

Site feedback

Fox Sports: "Zach Arnold's Fight Opinion site is one of the best spots on the Web for thought-provoking MMA pieces."

« | Home | »

Arbitration Agreement Plc

By Zach Arnold | September 11, 2021

Print Friendly and PDF

“. If the parties have clearly expressed their intention to settle disputes through arbitration, the Tribunal should give effect to that intention, even if some aspects of the agreement may be ambiguous, contradictory, incomplete or in some detail. as long as the arbitration proceedings can be conducted without prejudice to the rights of one of the parties and as long as the effect of that intention does not result in arbitration proceedings which do not fall within the scope of the recital of one of the parties`. In a recent landmark decision in Multiplex Constructions LLC vs. Elemec Electromechanical Contracting LLC, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Tribunal sent a clear message that arbitration agreements providing for a DIFC seat must be respected. But even after this review, HKL`s Singapore High Court vs. Rizq International Holdings upheld a clause stating that disputes “shall be settled by the Singapore Arbitration Committee according to the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce… ». He noted that, despite the fact that the clause defined a non-existent institution as an administrative institution, the parties were free to apply to any arbitration institution in Singapore that would be able to manage the arbitration under the ICC rules. Therefore, the tribunal stayed the legal proceedings on the condition that the parties obtain the agreement of SIAC or another arbitration institution in Singapore to proceed with a hybrid arbitration procedure under the ICC rules, with the freedom to apply if they fail to reach such an agreement. On the other hand, the Indian courts have also recognised that the clear terms of the treaty restrict the margin of interpretation. Therefore, in Jagdish Chander vs. Ramesh Chander, the Supreme Court held that the clause that “disputes shall be submitted to mediation if the parties so decide” did not warrant a binding arbitration agreement, due to the lack of “ad idem consensus” to refer disputes to arbitration. As you know, section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 requires a court to suspend its proceedings in a case in which the parties have agreed that it will be submitted to arbitration.

Under Article 9(4), however, the obligation to suspend the Tribunal is to be waived if the Tribunal is satisfied that `the arbitration agreement is void, inoperative or unenforceable`. In many cases, there will be a dispute over the validity or extent of the arbitration clause, and the question that will then arise is whether, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, the English court should order a stay so that the matter can be settled by the arbitrators, or refuse a stay and deal with the matter itself. so that questions s9 can be decided in court. The latter approach is almost always adopted, and another example is the recent decision of Christopher Clarke J in JSC BTA Bank against Ablyazov and Ors [2011] EWHC 587 (Comm). In Heifer International Inc vs. Christiansen [2007] EWHC 3015 (TCC), its judge of honour, Toulmin QC, had to answer a number of questions concerning the validity and inclusion of alleged arbitration clauses in the various contracts between the parties, following requests for suspension made by the defendant in response to legal proceedings initiated by the applicant. The Tribunal also examined the impact on arbitration terms of the 1999 Rules on unfair terms in consumer contracts. After much uncertainty, it is now established that if the validity of the substantive contract is challenged between the parties, the arbitration clause survives such a dispute and the arbitrators are free to determine the validity or invalidity of the contract. . .


Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |

Comments are closed.