For example, Option I of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance, article 7 of the Model Law as a whole, contains the “Arbitration Agreement” defined as “an agreement between the parties to arbitrate any dispute or a specific dispute that has arisen or may arise between them in connection with a defined contractual or non-legal relationship” and requires that the “Arbitration Agreement be in writing” (article 19). Singapore`s International Arbitration Act contains the same definition of “arbitration agreement” and the requirement that the “arbitration agreement must be in writing” (Articles 2A.(1) and 2A.(3)). The reforms introduced in the draft amendment follow existing international practice. The Model Law and some national laws similar to the Model Law treat the validity of the arbitration agreement fairly liberally, and the criteria applied are simple as to whether the parties clearly intended to arbitrate and whether the parties` agreement on the arbitration was established “in writing”. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that a challenge to the validity of a contract, and not specifically to the arbitration clause of the contract, must be decided by the arbitrator, not by the court. Building on previous decisions establishing the law applicable to arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act, the tribunal listed three specific and authoritative principles: (1) an arbitration clause is severable from the rest of the contract; (2) Unless the arbitration clause is contested, the validity of the contract shall first be examined by the arbitrator; (3) These principles of arbitration law apply in state and federal courts. The defendant emphasised that recital in order to argue that the composition agreement concerned only disputes arising from the revised third instalment, which had been paid in full. Therefore, the composition agreement, including the jurisdiction clause, does not apply to the plaintiff`s claims in this action. In addition, there is at least prima facie evidence that the dispute in this action falls within the scope of the arbitration clause, which remains binding on the parties. The Tribunal therefore has no discretion other than to refer the matter to arbitration pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Arbitration Order (Chap 609) (the “AO”). It provides as follows: “The tribunal seised of an action in a case which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, at the request of a party, refer the parties to the arbitration at the latest when it gives its first opinion on the content of the dispute, unless it finds that the agreement is null and void; unusable or impractical. It is then for the claimant to raise the issue of jurisdiction in arbitration and for the arbitral tribunal to decide on its own jurisdiction under Article 34 AO. The 8.
In March 2010, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a written agreement (the “Transfer Agreement”) in which the plaintiff agreed to transfer to the defendant its entire interest in Bond Tak, including the development rights, interest and liabilities of the project, in exchange for consideration of RMB 112,864,000, payable in 5 instalments. The delegation agreement states, inter alia, that “all disputes between the parties relating to this agreement shall be settled through friendly negotiations between the two parties on the basis of their efforts and sincere cooperation. If friendly negotiations fail, the dispute may be submitted by both parties to the Guangzhou Arbitration Commission in China for arbitration. (the “Arbitration Clause”). English law goes even further. Under section 6 of the English Arbitration Act 1996, an “arbitration agreement” means “an agreement to be submitted to present or future disputes (whether contractual or not)”. English law does not require that the agreement be necessarily in writing, although an oral agreement can be problematic. French law could perhaps be seen as the upper limit of liberalism. According to the amended Code of Civil Procedure, for domestic arbitration, an arbitration agreement must be valid in writing, and for international arbitration, “an arbitration agreement is not subject to any requirement regarding its form” (Article 1507).
An application for an injunction against an action to limit a foreign proceeding for alleged breach of an arbitration clause may result in the English courts ruling on the validity or nullity of the arbitration clause. Midgulf International Ltd v Group Chimice Tunisien [2009] EWHC 963 (Comm) shows that, in such circumstances, the question of jurisdiction is dealt with by the courts and not by the arbitrators. The contract at issue resulted from the transactions of a group of plaintiffs who had used the services of a cheque cashing company. In each transaction, claimants were subject to a binding arbitration provision in all resulting disputes. When the plaintiffs sued the company in a class action lawsuit over allegations of usury funding in violation of state law, the company attempted to force arbitration. The relationship between the elements of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which requires a court to stay its proceedings if there is a valid and enforceable arbitration clause with respect to the dispute, is a matter of some difficulty. The lengthy judgment of Aikens LJ, speaking on behalf of the Court of Appeal of the joint-stock company “Aeroflot Russian Airlines” v. Berezovsky [2013] EWCA Civ 784, provides a welcome clarification. In order to avoid jurisdictional disputes from the outset, the parties are reminded, before entering into ancillary agreements, to carefully review the provisions of the original agreement and, if necessary, seek legal advice to ensure that any conflict with the addendum is adequately addressed. Following the payment of the first instalment under the transfer agreement by the defendant, the parties concluded, on 24 October 2012, a written supplementary agreement (the `supplementary agreement`) amending and amending the transfer agreement so that, inter alia, the consideration was increased to RMB 121 494 000; and the balance of the consideration is payable in the amount of 3 additional instalments: (a) RMB 30 million (the “second revised instalment”); (b) RMB 30 million (the “third revised tranche”); and RMB 31,494,000 (the “Revised Fourth Tranche”).
Following the ASP`s interpretation, the Beijing Dongcheng District Court concluded that the arbitration agreement was valid in a similar case in which the parties agreed to apply the ICC Arbitration Rules, as the Arbitration Commission (i.e. the ICC) could be determined from the agreement of the parties on the arbitration rules.4)Beijing Dongcheng District Court (2018) Jing 0101 Min Chu No.6973. The plaintiff argued that the tribunal was not required to stay the arbitration under subsection 6(2) of the IAA because the defendants did not have locus standi because the plaintiff had never signed the arbitration agreement. This was a matter that could only be decided by the court after a full trial applying the usual standard of civil evidence, because if there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, no court could be formed to decide the issue. The SCC`s interpretation was indeed helpful, but it did not resolve the issue from scratch – it could not amend the Arbitration Act. The third condition for the validity of the arbitration agreement therefore remains. According to the SCC`s interpretation, many arbitration agreements were still found to be invalid because they had not appointed an arbitration board. (a) The substantive validity of an international arbitration agreement shall be determined by the law chosen by the parties to the agreement or, in the absence of indication, by the law in force at the place (seat) of the arbitration.
5 Thus, there are only three different connecting factors, the seat of which is the most important, as regards the determination of the law governing all aspects of the validity of international arbitration agreements for six (see paragraphs 2 and 4). As is well known, § 9 para. 1 of the Arbitration Act 1996, a court to stay its proceedings in respect of a matter the parties have agreed to be referred to arbitration. However, under Article 9(4), the obligation to suspend the tribunal is waived if the tribunal is satisfied that `the arbitration agreement is void, ineffective or unenforceable`. In many cases, there will be a dispute over the validity or scope of the arbitration clause, and the question then arises as to whether the English court, in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, should order a stay so that the matter can be resolved by the arbitrators, or refuse a stay and deal with the case itself. so that s9 issues can be decided by the courts. The latter approach is almost always chosen, and another example of this point is the recent decision of Justice Christopher Clarke in JSC BTA Bank v. Ablyazov and Ors [2011] EWHC 587 (Comm). . .
. .