In a recent Taizhou Court Case decision, taizhou Intermediate People`s Court refused to enforce an ICC arbitration award on public policy grounds, as the court had previously ruled that the compromise clause was not valid. This result could have been avoided if the parties had established an appropriate arbitration seat in the compromise clause. We will discuss this matter and make recommendations to avoid such results. Article 32.2.2 states that “[the parties] also agree that the arbitration provisions of this clause 32 be replaced by appropriate alternative provisions to ensure the competence of this newly created centre within the Abu Dhabi global market, should Abu Dhabi Global Market establish an arbitration centre.” In the case of NAVIERA AMAZONICA PERUANA/COMANIA INTERNACIONAL DE SEGUROS DEL PERU7, the English court established the principle of “the closest and most intimate link” to guide the courts in the search for the seat of international arbitration. Therefore, when a compromise clause uses the word “Venues,” it can only refer to the physical or geographical location chosen by the parties for arbitration. See NNPC v. LUTIN INV LTD (2006) 2 NWLR (PT. 965,) 506, where the Nigerian Supreme Court interpreted the “place” as a place. Article 33 of the lease stipulates that the contract is governed and interpreted by the applicable law, that the lease agreement is considered “any provision of Abu Dhabi global market and Abu Dhabi law applicable …
Defined. for now.” Sixth, the Court considered whether the amended provisions of the contract notice were appropriate (a) and (b) within the limits of paragraph 32.2. The Tribunal found that the amended provisions met the adequacy requirement and “serve the commercial purpose of the clause.” The court pointed to the fact that the applicant had also alleged to alter the Abu Dhabi arbitration headquarters in Abu Dhabi Global Market. The Court found that, although this amendment was not necessary, this amendment was reasonably incidental to the applicant`s other amendments and within the applicant`s authority to require the appropriate amended provisions. Parties to an international contract sometimes fail to reach an agreement on the material law applicable to all disputes that may arise during their contractual relationship. This phenomenon is more often noted in the context of state contracts, particularly in the context of natural resource investment contracts between a state and a foreign private party1. As a respected jurist has rightly said:2 parties should avoid: giving the respondent a unilateral right to choose a seat, as was the case in the taizhou court, because if the parties did not agree on the law governing the compromise clause, this approach will not only create uncertainty, but will also give a recalcitrant respondent the opportunity to thwart arbitration by choosing a seat under which the compromise clause does not exist. That`s right.