Conditions Of A Valid Arbitration Agreement

Under the new regulations, the Tribunal does not retain this discretion. Unless the tribunal finds that the arbitration agreement is void and unassyed, ineffective or unenforceable, the tribunal must refer the parties to arbitration: Bulkbuild Pty Ltd v Fortuna Well Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QSC 173 as of [12][2]. Third parties who have entered into or are entering into a legal relationship with the legal entity (including existing, past or future counterparties of the legal person) may at any time agree to be bound by this arbitration agreement in a contract with the legal person or in any other document sent to the legal person. (a) In the event that the discussions provided for in clause 30.4 are unable to resolve the dispute, each party expressly agrees to endeavor to resolve the dispute through mediation, operated by the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre (ACDC) before it may resort to arbitration or litigation. In our previous article, we dealt with the topic of “fragmentation” and its impact on a request to stay proceedings until arbitration. In this article, we will examine the broader considerations that apply to requests for stay of proceedings until arbitration, focusing on the requirement of a valid arbitration agreement. Section 8 of the Act constitutes a significant abandonment of the regulations in force in the previous legislation[1]. The Court took into account the situation in English law and the decision of the English High Court on the same issue in Nigel Peter Albon (acting as N A Carriage Co) against Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd et anor [2007] 2 All ER 1075. In this case, the English High Court concluded that the wording of the English equivalent of section 6 of the IAA (Section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996) meant that the Tribunal had to decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to enter into an arbitration agreement. While it was not possible to resolve this issue on the basis of the evidence available at the time of the application, the Tribunal was unable to grant a mandatory stay under Article 9(1) of the Arbitration Act (but irrespective of that, it was free to exercise its intrinsic competence to stay the proceedings). The claimant argued that the signature of the guarantee was not its own, which means that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that, therefore, it is the courts of Singapore, and not the tribunal already constituted, which have jurisdiction to determine the existence of the arbitration agreement. .

. .