In Breach Of An Arbitration Agreement

The parties to this contract (agreement) agree to be bound by the arbitration agreement in the Corporation Charter [indicate the name used in the contract to designate the corresponding corporation], which provides for the settlement of all disputes arising from the rights of the legal participants in the corporation and relating to the legal relations of the corporation with third parties. , including disputes relating to the declaration of transactions as invalid and/or on the application of the consequences of the invalidity of transactions, before the International Commercial Arbitration Tribunal before the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, in accordance with its applicable rules and rules. (i) if the obligation not to contest a dispute had conditional status (a clause whose violation, however trivial, amounts to a refusal); or (ii) whether the offence contributed to depriving the innocent party, for the most part, of all the advantage it had to derive from the arbitration agreement (the Hong Kong Fir test). In 2014, Hualon, through a bankruptcy administrator appointed by its creditors (the “beneficiary”), brought BVI (the “BVI Complaint” to court in proceedings against its former directors and Marty Ltd (“Marty”), a company owned by the former directors. Hualon claimed that the former directors, in violation of their obligations, had illegitimately watered down Hualon`s stake in their Vietnamese subsidiary to Marty. Hualon filed a complaint about dishonest help and unjust enrichment against Marty. The BVI`s appeal was ultimately dismissed. Apart from the above examples, it is no stranger to the parties to simply make mistakes and neglect an arbitration agreement. However, such an error will not deny the intention to refuse, as the test is objective. Hualon claimed that he was not aware of the arbitration agreement when he launched the BVI action, but Hualon was not allowed to rely on his own alleged ignorance because it was not communicated to Marty. This is a purely subjective reason for their behaviour and cannot nebly deny the deliberate intention to reject a reasonable person (see [52] and [74]).

Permanent link to this article: