The Munich and Karlsruhe oberlandesgericht were also to rule on the validity of the arbitration clauses, which provided that an arbitral tribunal had to rule on disputes arising from a contract. Both clauses explicitly exclude the jurisdiction of national courts. However, in both cases, the parties agreed to enter into a separate agreement setting, among other things, the rules relating to the constitution of the tribunal and the procedure. You have never made these separate agreements. Both courts upheld the arbitration clauses because the parties” intentions to be bound by arbitration could be clearly inferred from those clauses. In addition, the courts have decided that the constitution of the court or rules on procedure are not mandatory requirements of a compromise clause. If the parties do not agree on these requirements, the rules of delay of the German arbitration right apply, for example. B paragraphs 1035 or 1042 ZPO (OLG Munich, 6.8.2015, 34 Sch 3/15, BeckRS 2016, 4080); OLG Karlsruhe, 28.2.2012, NJOZ 2012, 809). His Honour distinguished the clause clause in Manningham City Council v Dura (Australia) Constructions Pty Ltd  3 VR 13 (hereafter: Manningham) and Mulgrave Central Mill Company Ltd v Hagglund Drives Pty Ltd  2 Qd R 2 514 (”Mulgrave”) in which clauses were considered valid arbitration agreements in electoral circumstances  – : While this case shows: the importance of clear wording for the inclusion of a compromise clause in all contexts, stresses, In an insurance context, The importance of: ensuring, where possible, the consistency of dispute resolution clauses used within an insurance tower to minimize the risk of disputes. 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. As everywhere else, French practitioners and their clients are concerned with the length and cost of arbitration. The French and continental approach, since they do not end the discovery, tends to cost less than arbitration procedures conducted according to Anglo-Saxon practices. As the case above shows, the need to meet the criteria of a valid arbitration agreement should not be overlooked or underestimated. The key is to design the arbitration clause with specificity to ensure that arbitration is mandatory. Be aware of the process if it contains an alternative multi-level dispute resolution process.