After not inserting such a clause into their contract, the parties tend to resolve their disputes through other forums (state courts), despite the many potential advantages of an arbitration procedure over litigation. Arbitration by a filing agreement is indeed the apotheosis of consensusism, because the parties accept arbitration with full knowledge of the extent of an existing dispute. If there is no explicit arbitration agreement between the parties regarding the reference to arbitration disputes, the Tribunal cannot refer the parties to arbitration unless there is a written agreement of the parties through joint application or a joint note or a joint affidavit. Thus, the legal effect of a compromise clause, which is inherently invalid, is different from a compromise clause that contains arbitration clauses that the Popular Courts have struck down. Section 58 of the Arbitration Act does not mention “any compromise clause” as a reason for a people`s court to reject a sentence. (3) In addition, Article 18 of the Judicial Interpretation of arbitration provides that a compromise clause that a court has struck down or struck down must be considered “no compromise clause” under section 58. Is the applicant`s application within the scope of the arbitration agreement? 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. It says that after accepting and implementing the principle of jurisdiction for so many years, we must ignore this malaise. Otherwise, we can make more subtle and subtle distinctions between situations where the principle applies and situations where this is not the case. This case is a welcome confirmation of the application of the jurisdictional principle in cases where the existence of the arbitration agreement is contentious. It is now clear that parties challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement in Singapore should do so before the Arbitration Tribunal itself, unless there is very strong evidence that there is no arbitration agreement. With its decision, the Singapore court strengthened its pro-arbiter attitude and the policy of primacy over the arbitral tribunal.
The Supreme People`s Court made this clear in a decision of 18 May 2009 on a contractual dispute between three companies. The court found that the arbitration clause, which provided for either arbitration or litigation, was invalid and would be found as such as soon as one of the companies took the matter to the People`s Court. (4) In its decision, the Singapore Supreme Court cited the chapter entitled “Commentary on the UnCIR Model Law,” Larry Shore, co-authored with Stavros L Brekoulakis at Concise International Arbitration, which outlines the difference in the approach of national courts to the issue of jurisdictional principles, and whether such jurisdictional issues arising from an arbitration agreement dispute , should be decided by the national court itself.