CLOUT
  index.

The case concerned an arbitration clause contained in a contract entered into by the parties. The clause provided for the appointment of one arbitrator by each party and an umpire to be jointly appointed by those arbitrators.

The appellant sought to rely on the arbitration clause after a dispute arose between the parties. After the respondent claimed that the arbitration clause could not be resorted to, and, therefore, refused to name an arbitrator, the appellant brought an action in the High Court . The High Court rejected the respondent's contention that the arbitration clause was invalid in light of section 10 of the new 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act (adapted from article 10 MAL). The aforementioned provision in the Act states that parties are free to determine the number of arbitrators, provided that such number shall not be an even number. Special leave was given to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the relevant provision to determine the validity of an arbitration agreement is section 7 of the 1996 Act (adapted from article 7 MAL), which contains the writing requirement. As there is no reference to the number of arbitrators within this provision, the Supreme Court concluded that the validity of an arbitration clause does not depend on the number of arbitrators specified therein. The arbitration clause was therefore held to be valid.

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