CLOUT
  index.

The mere presence of procedural irregularities in the implementation of the arbitration process, under either the agreement itself or the collective bargaining agreement, will not prevent the dispute from proceeding to arbitration.

Krutov, a hockey player residing in Moscow and the Club, a British Columbia corporation, had a contract for playing services of three years' duration. The Club refused to pay Krutov for the second and third seasons and Krutov in turn refused to play. The Club sent the dispute to arbitration pursuant to the agreement. The Club argued that the dispute was automatically subject to arbitration and that article 8 of the Model Law as enacted by the International Commercial Arbitration Act, Statutes of British Columbia, 1986, c.14 contains no discretion for the court to deflect a consensual arbitration. Krutov argued that the contract was null and void and thus there was no arbitration agreement. Krutov also argued that procedural irregularities existed making referral to arbitration impossible.

The Court found that the agreement was not null and void within the meaning of section 8 of the Act. The procedural irregularities referred to by Krutov concerned time limits and notice requirements. The Court concluded that such irregularities in themselves would not prevent the parties from proceeding to arbitration.

(In making this finding, the court placed particular emphasis on the decision reported as Case 9.)

Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "9 February 2000"):

Abstract published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 2, 79

Text of the court decision published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 2, 82

Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 1999.