The Fiona Trust doctrine revisited: the continued relevance of party autonomy and contract construction

[thumbnail of 2024_Accepted Version.pdf]
Text - Accepted Version
· Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 December 2025.
Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 December 2025

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Law, S. W. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5231-2845 (2024) The Fiona Trust doctrine revisited: the continued relevance of party autonomy and contract construction. International Arbitration Law Review, 27 (4). pp. 280-295. ISSN 1367-8272

Abstract/Summary

Quite often, within a particular contractual relationship, there are inconsistencies between multiple dispute resolution/jurisdiction clauses, which can lead to disputes over how parties may resolve any contractual dispute. Like the recent case in Ganz v Petronz FZE, and many other cases, the House of Lords’ decision in Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov becomes an opening line to examine the validity of arbitration clauses and, if they are not valid, judges can move on to evaluate the merit of the case itself. Yet the validity of the arbitration clause is seldom challenged. By revisiting the Fiona Trust judgment and subsequent related cases, this article contends that there are two gaps in establishing the presumption of one-stop arbitration. The much-needed finality and certainty for the doctrine is established through a wider application of the three-stage test already stated in Fiona Trust: first, to state an intent not to make submissions to different tribunals; second, to evaluate the centre of gravity of the dispute; and third, to examine whether it could be reconciled with arbitration clauses. This framework complements the presumption of one-stop arbitration that completes the missing pieces of Fiona Trust and can better serve business needs by avoiding courts mechanically directing parties to arbitration.

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/120151
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Law
Publisher Sweet & Maxwell
Publisher Statement This article first published in the International Arbitration Law Review, available online on Westlaw UK.
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar