FahadKhan

Asymmetrical Arbitration Agreement

The situation under Russian law is complex and the application of asymmetric clauses can be problematic. In a case often reported in 2012, the Office of the Supreme Court of Arbitration (then the highest court for commercial affairs) ruled that a clause allowing a single party to allow the possibility: In addition to the standard arbitration clause that binds both parties to the proceedings, it would violate Russian law, as it would confer on one party an unfair advantage over the other and would therefore violate the principle of equality of arms (see resolution of 19 June 2012 No. 1831/12 in Case No. А40-49223/11-112-40). As a result, the court allowed both parties to assert their rights in Russian courts. In other words, the asymmetric clause has been interpreted as symmetrical. Other jurisdictions, before and after, have chosen different approaches to this area. In some cases, the Tribunal did not find these asymmetrical clauses problematic, while in others, the courts followed the advice of the Arbtirazh Supreme Court Office. He may conclude that the Singapore Court of Appeal has no problem in granting the parties considerable private autonomy in how they wish to settle their disputes. The protection of each party, which has the same means of dispute settlement, therefore seems less important. Singapore therefore seems to be a safe choice for parties wishing to use an AAC. This is further evidence that Singaporean courts respect party autonomy…