Dispute Resolution in UK Law

Enforcement of such an agreement when found as part of a dispute resolution clause is in the public interest, first, because commercial men expect the court to enforce obligations which they have freely undertaken and, second, because the object of the agreement is to avoid what might otherwise be an expensive and time consuming arbitration.

The rule applies to exclude all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement whether oral or in writing from being given in evidence.

There is an obvious lack of certainty in a mere undertaking to negotiate a contract or settlement agreement, just as there is in an agreement to strive to settle a dispute amicably, as in Paul Smith Ltd v. H&S International Holding Inc, supra. That is because a court would have insufficient objective criteria to decide whether one or both parties were in compliance or breach of such a provision.

It is only too easy in a complex case for a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of an adjudicator to comb through the adjudicator's reasons and identify points upon which to present a challenge under the labels "excess of jurisdiction" or "breach of natural justice". The task of the adjudicator is to find an interim solution which meets the needs of the case. The need to have the "right" answer has been subordinated to the need to have an answer quickly.

In my opinion the construction of an arbitration clause should start from the assumption that the parties, as rational businessmen, are likely to have intended any dispute arising out of the relationship into which they have entered or purported to enter to be decided by the same tribunal. The clause should be construed in accordance with this presumption unless the language makes it clear that certain questions were intended to be excluded from the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

First, as to the existence of the power to stay proceedings in a case which come close to section 1 of the 1975 Act, and yet falls short either because of some special feature of the dispute-resolution clause, or because for some reason an agreement to artbitrate cannot immediately, or effectively, be applied to the dispute in question.

Having made this choice I believe that it is in accordance, not only with the presumption exemplified in the English cases cited above that those who make agreements for the resolution of disputes must show good reasons for departing from them, but also with the interests of the orderly regulation of international commerce, that having promised to take their compaints to the experts and if necessary to the arbitrators, that is where the appellants should go.