2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
In the context of a number of claims in arbitration under guarantees issued by a Chinese party, the Court confirmed that the arbitration tribunals had jurisdiction to hear the substantive disputes. The Court affirmed that an arbitration clause is a distinct and different agreement from that of the other provisions in the contract of which it forms part. An arbitration clause is not swept away by any underlying illegality or unenforceability of the rest of the agreement. If the assumed facts that the guarantees were illegal under Chinese law were proven in the arbitrations, then their illegality would be established and the guarantees would not be enforceable. That outcome would not breach the obligation of international comity between nations.
This case note has been contributed by Jim Leighton, BSc (Hons), LLB (Hons), LLM (Maritime Law), Solicitor of England & Wales, an International Contributor to DMC’s CaseNotes
'''Background'''
1. [1929] 1 KB 470
2. [1958] AC 301
3. [2007] UKHL 50, [2007] 4 All ER 951
4. [2010] EWHC 1411 (Comm) at [179]
