Tindak Murni did not return the default judgment to trial, but requested a stay of the legal proceedings until arbitration. Disgruntled, Juang Setia appealed to the High Court of Justice against the Chancellor`s decision and for Tindak Murni`s decision to stay the decision. The High Court found that there was a potential defence on his face (1) that could be high and materially justified the annulment of the default judgment; and (2) a valid compromise clause to which the parties had committed. The judicial proceedings in which the trial is suspended until the trial is referred to an arbitral tribunal. “Any dispute or difference (contractual or non-contractual) arising from or related to this letter (including matters relating to its existence, validity, interpretation or termination) is governed by an arbitration procedure [in London, in accordance with ICC rules].” It is interesting to note that the Federal Court of Justice firmly rejected Juang Setia`s attempt at arbitration by obtaining a judgment from a Malaysian court and then argued that the default judgment should take precedence over the arbitration agreement, thereby eliminating any consequences on the breach of the arbitration agreement. Juang Setia argued that the priority of the arbitration agreement would mean that the Tribunal`s judgment is “subordinated” to an arbitration agreement, which is not possible without specific legislation. The Bundesgerichtshof strongly criticized this argument: “Any dispute, controversy or claim that may result from this contract (contract) [if a separate arbitration agreement is concluded, indicate a particular contract (agreement), or the entry, conclusion, amendment, performance, violation, termination or validity of it, is settled by international arbitration of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and the Russian Federation in accordance with its regulations and regulations. The situation of international arbitration seems somewhat different. Article 16 of the Model Act, which was passed in South Africa and applies in the absence of the International Arbitration Act 2017, provides that the arbitrator may rule on his own jurisdiction, including any objection to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement and an arbitrator`s decision that the main agreement is null and void does not result in the invalidity of the compromise clause.
In this case, it is important to note that some leading arbitration institutions, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, have a very general arbitration clause that does not even speak of “education, existence, education or validity.” In these cases, it is generally accepted that an arbitrator would be empowered to resolve “any dispute” involving the main agreement, called “jurisdiction/competence.” Structured negotiations and/or mediations provide parties with alternatives to arbitration procedures and disputes that provide faster, cheaper and more flexible dispute resolution methods.