Validity Of The Arbitration Agreement

This case is a good confirmation of the application of the principle of jurisdiction in cases where the existence of the arbitration agreement is controversial. It is now clear that parties who wish to challenge the existence of an arbitration agreement in Singapore should do so before the arbitral tribunal itself, unless there is very strong evidence that there is no arbitration agreement. With its decision, the Singapore court further strengthened its pro-arbitration stance and the policy of giving priority to the arbitral tribunal. The Court`s judgments confirm the favourable approach to arbitration in Germany German courts apply the rules of contract interpretation under Articles 133, 157 BGB, even if the parties have not clearly designated the arbitral institution in its arbitration clause. The Berlin Regional Court had to rule on the validity of a clause which applies … of the German Chamber of Commerce … »). In Germany, there are several “German chambers of commerce”. However, the Tribunal confirmed the clause, as the parties` intentions to arbitrate and exclude the public courts as a dispute resolution forum could clearly be inferred from the clause […] is definitively settled by arbitration proceedings. […] The arbitral award shall be final and binding on the parties.”) (KG Berlin, 3.9.2012, SchiedsVZ 2012, 337). The Court established the parties` intentions with regard to the arbitral institution agreed under Articles 133 and 157 of the Civil Code. In the light of the circumstances of the case, it decided that the Rules of Dis (Deutsche Institution für Schiedsgerichtsbarkei e.V.) applied. This pro-arbitration approach, however, is limited.

If the parties agree on a forum selection clause in favour of national courts and merely say that they wish to agree on an arbitration procedure, the courts may declare that the intentions of the parties to be bound to an arbitration are unclear (e.g. OLG Munich.B, 13.7.2017, BeckRS 2017, 117774). In Denmark, Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd [2010] SGHC 108, Belinda Ang J at the Singapore High Court followed the recent English authority on the courts` approach to challenging the validity of an arbitral award in enforcement proceedings under the New York Convention. 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 would be submitted to arbitration. . . .

This entry posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 

Comments are closed.