Select Page

ASES Havacilik Servis ve Destek Hizmetleri AS/Delkor UK Ltd [2012] EWHC 3518 (Comm), a decision of Hamblen J, was essentially a factual issue, two arbitration clauses of which were imposed in the documents submitted by each of the parties. The main interest of the case lies in the scholarly judge`s reconciliation with the formalities of an appeal against jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Tribunal considered the nullity of section 22 on the grounds of uncertainty within the meaning of Section 9(4) of the Act, which states that “on request under this section, the court grants a stay unless it is satisfied that the arbitration agreement may be null, inoperative or uneasy.” In deciding these issues, the Tribunal argued to the established authority that the courts should prefer a design that makes a trade agreement secure for an agreement that does not; and that, more specifically, the courts should attempt to interpret arbitration clauses in a way that provides them with enforceable content, provided that this can be done without being rewritten. In Kaye v Nu Skin UK Ltd [2009] EWHC 3509 (Ch), the applicant asserted that a compromise clause in an English contract providing for arbitration proceedings in Utah was not binding. In accordance with its usual practice, the English court refused to support its own procedure and decided to consider the issue of validity rather than refer it to the arbitrators. (a) If the dispute is to be resolved within two weeks of the intervention of the Chief Executive Officers, each party may refer the matter to arbitration proceedings. The parties may also challenge the validity of an arbitration agreement on the grounds that it is null and void, inoperative or unfit for implementation in accordance with Section 20 of the 20th century, although there are some differences in the world in determining the dissociability of arbitration clauses, a doctrine is widely accepted: while an arbitration clause is part of the contract, it must be distinguished from other contractual terms and should not be considered invalid, the contract is not valid. This doctrine is also included in THE legislation of the PRC. Under section 19 of the Arbitration Act, a compromise clause must exist independently and the modification, termination, termination or invalidity of a contract must not affect the validity of the compromise clause. In foreign contract cases, the validity of a contract is determined on the basis of contract law agreed between the interested parties. The Tribunal rejected Pipeline`s argument that ATCO had waived its right to insist on compliance with the arbitration clause in response to Pipeline`s requests prior to the commencement of the proceedings. It reviewed the correspondence between the parties and concluded that there was nothing to indicate that ATCO would not be based on the contractual provisions. The Tribunal found that “[d]s ATCO was not the plaintiff in the litigation and did not intend to initiate legal proceedings to enforce the rights, since its failure to invoke provisions of the clause cannot be relied upon as evidence that an election that waives its rights under the clause or nullifies compliance with the pipeline requirements” has not been invoked.” The reasons for the recognition and execution of a sentence are strictly limited, particularly in the case of a foreign arbitration award and its validity must be determined in accordance with the New York Convention.