Unilateral Termination Of Arbitration Agreement

What are the unilateral option clauses and why are they controversial? 5. In a slight departure from its previous decisions, Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Delhi HC v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (MANU/DE/3204/2009) confirmed the validity of a unilateral option clause. However, the impact of this decision on the Tribunal`s position is unclear, given that the clause was not maintained under Indian law, but under English law. An applicant still has the right to terminate arbitration and it would be unfair to compel him to continue the proceedings. As such, the applicant may unilaterally terminate the arbitration process by sending a notification to the other party. The denunciation of an arbitration agreement that cannot be terminated unilaterally must be dealt with. Keywords: alternative settlement of disputes, adr, litigation, notice, illusorius, change or dismissal, employees, employers Under the spotlight of Vis Moot 2020, this debate will continue. New knowledge may emerge as a result of the competition.

In all cases, as with all dispute resolution and arbitration clauses, a problem that UOC users have alive should be poor wording. In addition to the specific requirements for certain legislation, the UOC should clearly state: a) when and how the authorized party can vote; and b) the consequences of a parallel procedure after an election. It will always be wise for the parties to keep the above issues in mind and to obtain legal advice when introducing and choosing within the framework of the UOC. The conflict between two principles of international arbitration, party autonomy and equal treatment, is at the heart of this debate. This blog provides a) an overview of the characteristics of UOC in relation to the principles of party autonomy and equal treatment; b) positions in England, Hong Kong and Singapore; and (c) an overview of equality issues. The conclusion that the termination of the main contract does not affect the termination of a compromise clause can also be supported by the principle of the dissociability of arbitration clauses. However, the Tribunal did not debate this principle – not because it would not consider it relevant, but it appears that the argument was not advanced by the parties to the dispute. In France, in the case of Mrs X/Private Bank Edmond de Rothschild, the Supreme Court of France ruled that a UOC was “potestative” and therefore invalid.4 Please note that the Supreme Court of France also applied the Brussels I regulation and the Lugano Convention in this and other decisions concerning the UOC. Arbitration agreements and, therefore, arbitration agreements do not fall within the scope of the Lugano Convention, the Brussels I regulation and its successor regulation, the redesign of the Brussels Regulation. A “potestative” condition is a condition in which the satisfaction of the state is entirely in the power of a party belonging to the party.

However, it is difficult to see how the UOC imposes a condition. THE UOC only requires that disputes be resolved within a forum chosen by the authorized party. There is no condition for the performance of the other party`s contract. 4. Madras HC has decided not to flood castrol India Ltd. v. Apex Tooling Solutions ((2015) 1 LW 961 (DB) and does not object to the general principle that arbitration clauses do not necessarily have to be reciprocal.