In the first case, the judge relied on the decisions of Cruz City Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Limited  EWHC 3704 (Comm) and DTEK Trading SA v Morozov  EWHC 94 (Comm), which held that Article 44, as a whole, did not establish any power to order an injunction against a non-party to the arbitration. In those cases, it was argued that the wording of certain subsections of article 44 indicated an interpretation that they could only take effect between the parties to arbitration proceedings (e.g. B subsections 4, 5, 6 and 7). It is therefore not interesting to conclude that other subsections, unless there is an explicit language to the contrary, are effective vis-à-vis third parties. Consequently, the court of first instance in the present case dismissed the action brought in accordance with Article 44(2)(a). 4.3 What are the rules governing the conclusion, validity and legality of arbitration agreements? The claimant argued that the signature of the guarantee was not its own, which means that there is no valid arbitration agreement between the parties and that, therefore, it is the courts of Singapore, and not the tribunal already constituted, which have jurisdiction to determine the existence of the arbitration agreement. The respondents argued that, in order to comply with Article 6(2), the Singapore High Court need not be satisfied on a face of sight that there was an arbitration agreement to grant a stay. For this reason, the defendant`s position was that the Singapore High Court had no choice but to refer the matter to the court for a decision, since the guarantee appeared to be signed by the applicant. On 14 February 22, 2020, the English court issued its decision in Albion Energy Ltd v Energy Investments Global BRL  EWHC 301 (Comm), which further clarifies its approach to competing dispute settlement clauses in several agreements entered into by the parties. 2 In the absence of a choice by the parties, the law of the seat of the arbitral tribunal plays a predominant role in determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement.
It resolves the following issues, three of which concern the validity of the arbitration agreement: The decision is relevant to you if your contracts are closely related to England, an arbitration clause based in England and Wales, a choice clause in English law or if you have an arbitral tribunal formed or formed primarily in common law. Each of these circumstances may lead an arbitral tribunal or tribunal to apply the English legal approach to determining the law of an arbitration agreement. 6.2 In the case of arbitration proceedings within your jurisdiction, are there certain procedural steps prescribed by law? This decision underlines the importance of determining and understanding the possible effects of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement. . . .