Arbitration Agreement Stay

On April 10, 2017, Tindak Murni requested the annulment of the default judgment on the grounds that there was a valid dispute against Juang Setia`s claims and that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties. On July 31, 2012, the Clerk of the High Court set aside the default judgment on the grounds that there was „a defence brief on the merits because of litigation and/or contentious issues that warrant hearing the case on the merits.“ The High Court Judge granted a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration for reasons of business management. When the complainant appealed the decision, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court`s decision and held that the judicial process should be stayed until the issue of the validity of the settlement agreement was resolved by arbitration. Tindak Murni did not return the default judgment to trial, but requested a stay of the legal proceedings until arbitration. Disgruntled, Juang Setia appealed to the High Court of Justice against the Chancellor`s decision and for Tindak Murni`s decision to stay the decision. The High Court found that there was a potential defence on his face (1) that could be high and materially justified the annulment of the default judgment; and (2) a valid compromise clause to which the parties had committed. The judicial proceedings in which the trial is suspended until the trial is referred to an arbitral tribunal. This case provides additional guidance on the application of „stays“ to a procedure and is a confirmation of the decision of the High Court in P Elliot Company Limited/ FCC Elliot Construction Limited 3. In this case, Mac Eochaidh J.

made the first Irish decision on the interpretation of Section 8 and approved the test in Gulf Canada Resources Ltd/Arochen International Limited4: in this case, it was an application by an insurance company (insurer) to neglect an action of a company insured by the (insured) insurer in favour of an arbitration procedure. What is RCEP? The RCEP, signed with The Negotiations in 2012 at this year`s ASEAN summit (mostly online), creates the world`s largest free trade agreement in gross domestic product („GDP“), which accounts for about 30% of the world`s… However, the dispute settlement clause of the Directive (DRE clause) states that „if the amount to be paid under this directive is differentiated, such a difference is determined by an arbitrator in accordance with the current arbitration regulation. If the parties do not agree on the choice of an arbitrator or arbitrator, the election will be referred to the President of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.¬†Finally, the procedural measures and substantive arguments on the merits of the payment dispute, raised by both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court of Justice, underscore the growing needs of the Malaysian construction industry in arbitration to effectively deal with disputes in the construction sector. To this end, the Queen Mary University of London 2019 International Arbitration Survey (Driving Efficiency in International Construction Disputes) found that the main procedural characteristic that interviewees see as the greatest potential for improving efficiency in international arbitration processes is the summary elimination of undeserved claims or defences at an early stage. The most recent rules for commercial arbitration at a number of institutions, including the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre („HKIAC“), the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce („CSC“), provide summary decision-making procedures, including early release proceedings and summary judgments. It remains to be seen whether the Asian International Arbitration Centre („AIAC“) would propose such procedures in the revised arbitration rules it intends to put in place this year.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Comments are closed.