Go back to the basics. To decide the law, arbitrate or decide, you must first decide which matters are governed by the arbitration clause. The same goes for the decision, except that what governs this game is engraved in stone in the Act of Parliament, which we call the Construction Act. The heart of fiona`s dilemma against Privalov was that previous high-level cases had different opinions about the importance of sentences in arbitration clauses. Some clauses stipulated that disputes arising from “from” or “partners” have a broader meaning than “pennies”. Others said that these expressions should be treated as equivalent. Taking into account the officer`s employment within the company, his promise to settle all labour and compensation law disputes, salary increases and other benefits that the company currently and in the future pays to the executive, the executive agrees that any controversy, claim or dispute with anyone (including the company and an employee, the company`s shareholding or performance plan in its capacity as such or otherwise) resulting from the employment or termination of the officer`s activity in the company, including a breach of this Agreement, is subject to mandatory arbitration, in accordance with Section 75 of the NY Code of Civil Practice (the “Act”), and in accordance with New York law. The Federal Arbitration Act also applies at full capacity, regardless of the application of the procedural rules provided for by law. There is always a “skill challenge” as soon as a decision begins. As a juror, I don`t mind. From my point of view, the challenge of jurisdiction is only one other part of the dispute, but with one difference.
Some challenges are ridiculous, an attempt; Some question the adjudicator`s ability to judge. The contractor was successful in its decision. The employer was a squeincher and he went to court. It argued that the contractor did not have the right to return the right of misrepresentation to an adjudicator, since the contract provides that a dispute or difference may be referred to the decision only if it “results from the contract”. This was narrower than the arbitration clause of the contract, which allowed the parties to refer to any dispute or dispute arising out of “from or in connection with” the contract. The judge accepted the employer. He decided that he was able to distinguish the Fiona Trust case from the Hillcrest case. . .