Skip links

Seat Agreement Meaning

After the publication of the arbitral award, kfG filed, on December 13, 2017, a motion for nullity before the French courts, Paris being the seat of the arbitration. This request is expected to be judged by the Paris Court of Appeal in February 2020. On 21 December 2017, the claimant and the arbitrator sought enforcement of the award as a judgment in London under section 101 of the Arbitration Act 1996. On 1 March 2018, KFG requested, pursuant to paragraph 103(2)(a) and (b) of the Arbitration Act 1996, the rejection of the recognition and enforcement of the award, that the `arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which the parties submitted it`. If the Paris Court of Appeal embarks on this path and decides to apply French substantive rules, the two judgments may be incompatible. French case law suggests that an arbitration agreement can extend to all companies in a group, including those that are not signatories.12 Therefore, if the law of the underlying contract and the registered office differ, the parties should always explicitly state the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. Most major institutions already provide for this in their standard arbitration clauses. Or, in the legal provisions in force, specific reference could be made to the arbitration agreement. The physical place of arbitration does not have the same legal meaning.

Generally speaking, the location is decided on the basis of the comfort of all parties involved. It does not have to be the same (and often is not) the legal seat of the arbitration. The reference to the rules of the Nigerian ACA was not contrary to the election of England as its seat. All non-mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 have been deferred and only mandatory provisions would continue to apply. 5. In the event of disagreement on the choice of the third arbitrator, the third arbitrator shall be appointed by the President of the International Court of Justice at the request of the parties. The Court favoured the Sulamerica approach. If the arbitration agreement is a clause that is part of a main contract, the applicable law of the contract is a strong indicator of the applicable law of the arbitration agreement. The choice of a seat other than that of the applicable law is not in itself sufficient to dispel that presumption of departure.

If the parties had intended to do otherwise, another right should have applied. In this context, the Court of Justice has not accepted that the FirstLink approach is singapore law. . . .