the blog

Latest news.
Tata Arbitration Agreement

10 outubro 2021

ABP asked the English court to find that the clause was too uncertain to be enforceable. Tata requested that ABP`s claim be stayed pursuant to section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act), as the dispute was to be properly settled through arbitration under clause 22. On December 14, 2018, the 4th Central Court of Beijing (the “Tribunal”) upheld the validity of a pathological arbitration agreement that would not have a seat for arbitration proceedings, nor does the arbitral institution actually exist in Chinalight International Trade Co. Ltd. v. Tata International Metals (Asia) Ltd( “Chinalight v. Tata”). 1 The case followed the internationally recognised principle of maintaining the validity of the arbitration agreement. It also reflected the Chinese court`s tendency to promote the judicial environment conducive to arbitration. Even if the arbitration agreement is ultimately validated by the court, a dispute over its significance will inevitably cost all parties a fee and result in significant delays.

It is therefore necessary to ensure that arbitration agreements are as clear and secure as possible in all negotiations. “Article 14 If the parties have not agreed on the law governing the arbitration agreement, if they have not agreed on an arbitral institution or a seat of arbitration, or if such agreements are not clear, the tribunal may apply the law of the People`s Republic of China to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement.” In the present case, the parties did not agree on a lex arbitri. In particular, the arbitration agreement does not provide for an agreed place of conciliation. The arbitral institution agreed upon therein is in itself a non-existent entity. It will therefore be controversial to claim that the Singapore International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission is an arbitral institution based in Singapore. Could the Court establish that the seat of the arbitration proceedings or the location of the agreed arbitral institution is Singapore, and then apply Singaporean law to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement? Or would the Tribunal establish that the parties` agreements on the seat of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitral institution are unclear and, therefore, apply Chinese law to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement? In Voestalpine Schienen GmbH v Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd,13 an arbitration agreement containing a clause appointing an arbitrator of the organ of the delhi organ Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (“DMRC”) was challenged. Voestalpine opposed the appointment of an arbitrator and filed a petition in which it stated that the body was composed of retired civil servants from public or public enterprises, as they were not entitled to act as arbitrators. Finally, the Supreme Court of India has held that, in the past, appointed arbitrators were neither in the service of the DMRC nor used and that they were not qualified arbitrators; and instructed the petitioners to appoint a person from the entire body to be chosen as arbitrator. The Tribunal considered whether Term 22 was void for reasons of uncertainty within the meaning of section 9(4) of the Act, which provides that “upon application under this Section, the Tribunal shall grant a stay unless it is satisfied that the arbitration agreement is void, inoperative or unenforceable”. “Article 18 The parties may choose by agreement the law governing the arbitration agreement and, in the absence of such an agreement, the law shall apply to the place of arbitration or to the seat of the arbitral tribunal.” Seyfarth Synopsis: Amid an apparently pro-arbitration legal landscape, employers should recognize that workers still have certain strategies for opposing arbitration or invalidating an arbitration agreement. .

. .