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.