The central issue for the court was to determine the correct approach under Part 6 of the ILO, where the existence of an arbitration agreement is disputed. In its decision, the High Court of Singapore cited the chapter entitled « Commentary on the UnCIR Model Law, » written in collaboration with Stavros L. Brekoulakis in Concise International Arbitration, which outlines the differences in the approach of national courts on the issue of jurisdictional principles and whether jurisdictional issues arising from an arbitration agreement dispute should be decided by the national court itself. In most cases, the question of the validity or scope of a compromise clause returns to the court where Part A initiates legal proceedings, and Part B seeks to suspend confidence in an alleged compromise clause. In such cases, the regulated approach is that the court generally makes a decision on jurisdiction over the evidence before it, rather than leaving it to the arbitrators to do so. In British Telecommunications plc/SAE Group Inc , EWHC 252 (TCC) Ramsey J held that an equivalent approach should be taken when Part A seeks to declare that there is no arbitration agreement. 2 In the absence of a choice of the law of the parties, the right of the seat of arbitration plays a leading role in determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. It regulates the following issues, three of which relate to the validity of the arbitration agreement: b) the formal validity of an international arbitration agreement must be determined according to the formal rules of validity of the right of arbitration of the country in which the arbitration is based. However, the Tribunal refused to adopt the English position in its entirety, as the English Arbitration Act was different from that of the ILO in many respects. In particular, (a) the English Arbitration Act is not entirely based on the standard law of the CNUDCIR () nor does it contain it, which strictly overhauls judicial intervention in arbitration; (b) the English Arbitration Act deals with both domestic and international arbitrations, while the ILO deals only with international arbitrations; and (c) in England, it is possible for the parties to enter into contracts on the basis of the capacity of a court to determine their own material competence, for the benefit of the judicial treatment of these matters. The defendants argued that, in order to be satisfied that question 6, paragraph 2, was being applied, the Singapore Supreme Court had to be satisfied only on a prima facie basis that there was an arbitration agreement to allow a stay.
For this reason, the defendant was in the manner in which the Singapore Supreme Court had no choice but to subject the court to the question of the decision, since the guarantee was apparently signed by the plaintiff. On the other hand, most national arbitration laws take a broad look at what a written document, includes telescopics, e-mails and all other means of communication that generate a record.15 The UNCIR Model Law follows a similar approach.16 Below, we will briefly examine the formal and material requirements of any valid arbitration agreement. (a) In the event that the discussions in paragraph 30.4 do not resolve the dispute, each contracting party expressly agrees to attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation managed by the Australian Commercial Disputes Centre (ACDC) before resorting to arbitration or litigation. The Tribunal pointed out that any discomfort arising from the fact that a court has the power to determine its own jurisdiction and that it may therefore find that it is not competent to decide the issue if there is indeed no arbitration agreement.