The courts` approach was to recognize the existence of international public policy preventing a party from invoking restrictive provisions of its national or national law in order to prevent ex post facto arbitration between the parties. In a recent case, the Court of Appeal held that one clause that merely restricted one party`s right to engage in both a dispute and a domestic arbitration, while the other was limited to disputes (11th Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2009/3257). The Tribunal invoked due process and the right to a hearing. (For example, with the right to initiate arbitration proceedings, the party could prohibit the state`s legal proceedings by invoking the arbitration clause, while the other party cannot resort to arbitration at all.) The tribunal also held that the intent of an arbitration was unclear and absolute, as the agreement allowed a party to initiate both litigation and arbitration. Kenyan law does not set any restrictions, which may be included in an arbitration agreement. However, the provisions of the Agreement must not be contrary to the requirements of public policy. As already stated, criminal matters fall within the exclusive and initial jurisdiction of the courts. Disputes relating to insolvency, custody and guardianship, marital cases and testamentary disputes may also not be referred to arbitration on grounds of public policy. 2.3 Is international arbitration law based on the UNCSD Model Law? Are there any significant differences between the two? 6.5 Are there any rules that limit the appearance of lawyers from other jurisdictions in legal matters in your jurisdiction and, if so, is it clear that these restrictions do not apply to arbitration proceedings pending in your jurisdiction? Since the application of asymmetric clauses in Russia is complex and depends very much on the precise conditions of the clause itself, careful elaboration by an arbitration expert is necessary. Although Russian law allows for some asymmetry in arbitration agreements, any direct attempt to give better rights to one party than the other should be approached with caution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court`s decision and ruled that the dispute settlement clause was a valid arbitration agreement….

Categories: Uncategorized