Defective Arbitration Clauses: The Approach of National Courts and Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses in Arbitration Center of Iran Chamber | ||
| پژوهش حقوق خصوصی | ||
| Article 1, Volume 14, Issue 53, January 2025, Pages 1-52 PDF (920.56 K) | ||
| Document Type: Research Paper | ||
| DOI: 10.22054/jplr.2025.88084.2956 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Ali Moghaddam Abrishami* 1; Fereshteh Sheikhvand2 | ||
| 1Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabatabai University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2PhD student in private law at Faculty of Law and Political Science, Azad University, Karaj, Iran | ||
| Abstract | ||
| More than fifty years after Frédéric Eisemann's influential article, the issue of the pathological arbitration clauses still exists. Defects in an arbitration clause may occur in various instances. The task of national courts and arbitral tribunals is to determine whether a defective clause is curable or incurable. There are great arguments and controversies as to terminology, categorization and interpretation of defective arbitration clauses. Despite numerous judgments made by different courts in various jurisdictions, ambiguities and conflicting interpretations can still be observed, not only among jurisdictions, but also within a jurisdiction. The ways in which national courts and arbitral tribunals interpret the common intention of the parties depend, to a large extent, on how the clash between policy and principle is considered. The invalidity of the arbitration agreement is a ground for setting aside the arbitral award or refusing enforcement. It also affects the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in both ad hoc and institutional arbitration. Although arbitral institutions provide model clauses in order to assist the parties in drafting arbitration clauses, deviation from model clauses can largely be seen. This article discusses defective arbitration clauses by exploring the approach of national courts and by interpreting arbitration clauses referring to Arbitration Center of Iran Chamber (ACIC). It concludes that the concept of a pathologically defective clause remains alive in both pro-arbitration and arbitration-unfriendly jurisdictions, and it proposes solutions in order for the ACIC to address the problem. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| : Arbitral Institution; Arbitration; Arbitration Center of Iran Chamber (ACIC); Arbitration Clause; Institutional Arbitration; Pathological and Defective Clause | ||
| References | ||
|
-B. G. Davis, Pathological Clauses: Frédéric Eisemann's Still Vital Criteria, Arbitration International 7, 4 (1991).
-F. Eisemann, La Clause d’ arbitrage pathologique, in Commercial Arbitration: Essays in Memoriam Eugentio Minoli, 1974.
-G. Born, “Rethinking Pathological Arbitration Clauses: Validating Imperfect Arbitration Agreements”, in S. Tung, F. Fortese, C. Baltag (eds.), Finances in International Arbitration, Wolters Kluwer, The Netherlands, 2020.
-J. Plunkett, Principle and Policy in Private Law Reasoning, The Cambridge Law Journal 75, 2(2016).
-J. Tseng, Fiona Trust in Context: Interpreting Arbitration Clauses following Rinehart v. Hancock. Arbitration International 36, 2020, 109-121.
-K. Wagner, French Courts and Arbitration Validity: Simplicity or Legal Uncertainty? Journal of International Arbitration 42, 4 (2025)
-M. L. Moses, Principles and Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, 3th ed., Cambridge University Press, 2017.
-M. Schinazi, The Three Ages of International Commercial Arbitration, Cambridge University Press (2024).
-R. Calnan, Principles of Contractual Interpretation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
- S. Laurence, D. Benedetti, V & de Nitto Personè, Mario. ‘A Pathology (Yet) to Be Cured?’. Journal of International Arbitration 39, 3 (2022), 365–378.
Cases
Australia:
-Hancock Prospecting v. Rinehart [2017] FCAFC 170.
-Rinehart v. Welker [2012] NSWCA 95.
-Robotunits Pty Ltd v. Juergen Karl Mennel, [2015] VSC 268.
-Seeley International Pty Ltd v. Electra Air Conditioning B.V [2008] FCA 29.
China:
-Shanghai Iwasaki Electric Co. Ltd v. Weixin Enterprise Engineering Co. Ltd, Supreme People’s Court (25 May 2004).
-Shenzhen Sinowin Trade & Development Co. Ltd v. Baerlocher Far East Pte Ltd (2005).
Dubai:
-Case No 202 of 2021 (Dubai Court of Cassation).
France:
-Heirs to the Sultanate of Sulu v. Malaysia, Cour de Cassation, First Civil Chamber, November 2024.
Hong Kong:
-H v. G [2022] HKCFI 1327.
-Lucky-Goldstar International (H.K.) Limited v. Ng Moo Kee Engineering Limited [1994] Arb. & Disp. Resol. L.J. 49.
-William Co. v. Chu Kong Agency Co. Ltd [1994].
India:
-Corn Products Ltd v. Ayaz Ghadiya 1997 A.I.R (Indian Court).
-Pricol Ltd v. Johnson Controls Enters, Ltd No.30, 2014, Supreme Court of India.
Nigeria:
-National Material Trading v. M/V Kaptan Cebi.
Russia:
-Qilu Pharmaceutical Factory v. United States Antai International Trade Company.
Singapore:
-HKL Group Co. Ltd v. Rizq Int’l Holding Pte. Ltd, [2013] SGHCR 5.
-HKL Group Co. v. Rizq International Holding Pte. Ltd [2013] SGHCR 8.
-Insigma Technology Co Ltd v. Alstom Technology Ltd [2009].
-KVC Rice Intertrade Co. Ltd v. Asian Mineral Resources Ple Ltd and Another Suit [2017] SGHC 32.
-TMT Co Ltd v. Royal Bank of Scotland, [2017] SGHC 21.
-Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v. Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2016] 1 SLR 373.
South Korea:
-Seoul High Court Judgment, Case No. 80Na535 (1980).
-Supreme Court Judgment Case No. 2024Da243172, (2025).
Turkey:
-HD., E. 2009/5703, K. 2009/8256 T. 12.05.2014.
-Y9. HD., E.99/3348, K.99/4304, T.21.06.1999.
UK:
-Ace Capital Ltd v. CMS Energy Corp. [2008] EWHC 1843 (Comm).
-Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v. Privalov [2007] UKHL 40.
-Lobb P’ship Ltd v. Aintree Racecourse Co. Ltd [2000].
-Naviera Amazonica Peruana S.A. v. Compania Internacional de Seguros del Peru, [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 116.
-OOO Abbott v. Design & Display [2017] EWHC.
-Paul Smith Ltd v. H&S International Holding Inc, [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 127 (Q.B.).
-Shell International Petroleum Co. Ltd V. Coral Oil Co. Ltd [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 72 (Q.B.).
-Sulamerica Cia Nacional de Serguros S.A. & others v. Enesa Engenharia S.A. [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 275.
United States of America:
-Brown v. ITT Consumer Financial Corporation, 211 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2000).
-Control Screening LLC v. Tech. Application & Prod. Co, 687 F.3d 163, 166 (3d Cir. 2012).
-Critical Health Systems of North Carolina, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services 212 F.3d 860 (4th Cir. 2000).
-Dynamic Industries, Incorporated v. Baker Hughes Saudi Arabia Company Limited، 23-30827 5th Cir. 2025 (Court of Appeal).
-Great Earth Cos., Inc. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878 (6th Cir. 2002).
-Inetianbor v. CashCall, Inc. 768 F.3d 1346 (11th Cir. 2014).
-Kwasny Co. v. Acrylicon Int’l Ltd, No. 09-13357, 2010 WL 2474788.
-PaineWebber, Inc. v. Rutherford, 903 F.2d 106, 108 (2d Cir. 1990).
-Parm v. National Bank of California, N.A., 835 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2016).
-Travel port Global Distribution System BV v. Bellview Airlines Ltd, 2012 WL 3925856.
-No. C.A. 2:95-3673-23, 1997 WL 915000 (D.S.C. Mar. 13, 1997).
-Warnes S.A. v. Harvic Int’l, Ltd, 1993 WL 228028.
Venezuela:
-LSR C.A. v. Jesus Ramon Rodriguez, Expate. 1181, Venezuela (2016).
Website
https://arbitration.tccim.ir/page?pageid=121&title=%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%B7%20%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C
https://en.otagh-bazargani.com/arbitration-center
قوانین و مقررات
-Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention) 1958.
-English Arbitration Act 2025.
-Federal Arbitration Act 1925.
-ICC’s Arbitration Rules 2021.
-Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules 2025.
-UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 2006.
-UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 2021.
- آیین نامۀ تشکیلات مرکز داوری اتاق ایران مصوب 1384 و اصلاحات سال 1401.
- دستورالعمل ساماندهی حلّ و فصل اختلافات از طریق داوری و ایجاد و توسعۀ نهادهای داوری، مصوب 12/11/1400 رئیس قوه قضائیه.
- دستورالعمل نحوه تشکیل، اداره، نظارت و تعلیق دفاتر مرکز داوری اتاق ایران مصوب 1403.
- دستورالعمل نحوه تشکیل و اداره دفاتر مرکز داوری اتاق ایران مصوب 1396.
- قانون اساسنامۀ مرکز داوری اتاق ایران مصوب سال 1380 مجلس شورای اسلامی.
- قواعد داوری مرکز داوری اتاق ایران، مصوب 1402.
| ||
|
Statistics Article View: 380 PDF Download: 223 |
||