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. The Federal Law on International Commercial Arbitration, 1993 (the “Law”) and amended in 2017 regulates international commercial arbitrations throughout Russia. It is clear that this has a unifying effect and harmonizes legal practices in Russia. This guide focuses on the key considerations to be considered in the development of dispute resolution clauses. In a recent decision of the ex-Tempore in the case of Loblaw Companies Limited/Origin – Co Ltd – Another  SGHC 59 (“Loblaw/Origin”), singapore`s Supreme Court refused to exercise its discretion through s10 (9) of the International Arbitration Act (“IAA”) and refused: to suspend arbitration proceedings until the final decision of the Singapore courts on a separate motion for a right of praise for a review of the Tribunal`s decision on its jurisdiction. The courts have recently decided that it is necessary to refer to a particular arbitration institution and not just to its rules. It is therefore essential to carefully develop international arbitration clauses in Russia, as is the case with many other legal systems. 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 and found that the term “split” or “hybrid” includes a multitude of hybrid dispute resolution clauses, the most common clause providing for both judicial jurisdiction and arbitration in conjunction with a mechanism that allows one or both parties to determine the procedure as soon as a dispute arises. Such clauses are generally used when a party has a superior negotiating position, the strongest party uses the clause to optimize its position in a particular dispute. For example, the clause provides for disputes to be settled in the English High Court, with Part A also entitled to vote in order for the dispute to be referred to arbitration proceedings. Such clauses are increasingly appearing in financing agreements, particularly in international derivatives and credit transactions with counterparties in jurisdictions where English court decisions may not be easily enforced. They have the obvious advantage of allowing the strongest party to control where a proceeding is to be commenced, with the usual choice between arbitration or litigation.