The seat of arbitration: The High Court interpreted Article 14.2 as referring to two geographical sites: Shanghai and Singapore. It defended this view because Article 18.1 of the SIAC rules (2013) provides that Singapore will be the seat of arbitration without agreement to the contrary. The High Court decided that the parties had chosen Singapore as the seat of arbitration by approving the application of the SIAC rules (2013). As it was not possible to have two arbitration seats, the High Court interpreted the “Shanghai Arbitration” agreement to refer to the place of arbitration (i.e. where hearings would take place). The High Court also pointed out that, since Shanghai is not a legal district, the reference to Shanghai has been interpreted more naturally as a reference to the venue of the event as a seat. The High Court therefore found that the parties had chosen Singapore as their headquarters and Shanghai as their location. The dispute a born out of a “take agreement” between the applicant in the context of the legal proceedings (respondent in arbitration) and two defendants (applicant for arbitration) and subject to the laws of the People`s Republic of China (“PRC”). Article 14.2 of the takeover agreement was the parties` arbitration agreement and provided for a SIAC arbitration procedure “in Shanghai”. Although not indicated, it seems very likely that the decision was made that the parties were all cppibs.
In order to promote effective and effective resolution of disputes, it is important that courts and tribunals engage in impartial assessments of issues on the validity of arbitration clauses rather than directing parties to arbitration, no matter what. International commercial arbitration procedures do not operate in a closed national system: respondents who challenge the jurisdiction in duality generally have a second apple bite at the time of implementation. Courts in the Republic of China have been skeptical in the past about the argument of pro-arbitration creativity, which has sometimes been awarded in Singapore. Arbitrators will remember the refusal of application by the PRC courts in Astom Technology Ltd. against Insigma Technology Co. Ltd.4 and Noble Resources International Pte.