Writing Requirements For Arbitration Agreement

With respect to English domestic law, the 1996 Act expressly provides that all arbitration agreements are concluded in writing, but the case law of the 1996 Act contains a very broad definition of “written agreements.” Such an interpretation seems to have been made at the time of the old technological developments and, as such, it does not seem to exceed the limits of the broad construction that is usually adopted in a regular and regular manner. But the extension of the writing requirement to the most modern means of communication does not automatically negate the need for a written form as a precondition for the recognition of arbitration agreements. With respect to securities and financial litigation, it is increasingly common for parties to refer such disputes to the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre (FDRC) in Hong Kong. It is an independent non-profit organization that requires its members to settle monetary disputes with their clients through mediation and/or arbitration. Sweden – EN There are no formal conditions for an arbitration agreement in Sweden, but a written arbitration agreement is of course preferred for obvious reasons. Under the Swedish Arbitration Act, an oral arbitration agreement is also binding. Finally, an agreement reached by the exchange of written communications constitutes a written agreement within the meaning of the right of arbitration, in accordance with section 5, paragraph 2, point b). It should be noted that, according to page 5, paragraph 6, of the 1996 Act, the term “written” or “reference to everything written” includes its recording “by all means.” As a result, this category would include new telecommunications methods generally accepted for contracting. such as Telex Exchange, Fax Agreements and even other modern means of communication such as.B.

e-mails, which are often used today for contracting [Zambia Steel – Building Supplies Ltd/James Clark – Eaton Ltd [1986] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 225 CA, which appear to have been approved by the DAC in its report, DAC Report Para 34. Petredec Ltd v Tokumaru Kaium Co Ltd (The Sargasso) [1994] 1 Lloyd`s Rep 162 (CA), and, Abdullah M Fahem v Mareb Yemen Insurance Co [1997] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 738 (Comm), where Cresswell J decided that he was bound by the Zambia Steel case to find a written contract for the arbitration Act of 1975, which then applied. In light of these court decisions, it would be reasonable for the courts to be just as inclined to adopt Section II in the same way as above in order to cover the situation whenever new commonly adopted means of communication are developed, as is the case today with the emergence of new electronic means of e-mail communication.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.