Arbitration clauses have four essential purposes. They have to:
- produce mandatory consequences for the parties;
- exclude the intervention of state courts in the settlement of disputes likely to arise between the parties,
- give the arbitrators the powers necessary to resolve the disputes; and
- permit a procedure which leads, under the best conditions of efficiency and rapidity, to the rendering of an enforceable award.
A former Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration, Frederic Eisemann, had coined the term clauses pathologiques in 1974. A “pathological arbitration clause” fails to achieve any of the purposes above.
So what’s wrong with these clauses? Apart from being incoherent, confusing to interpret, and often plain baffling, these clauses are likely to end up in court, very much contrary to the original intention of the parties to avoid a long and drawn out public battle in the courts and have a speedy, efficient, and private resolution of their disputes.
Remember, being “pathological” does not always mean the clause is unenforceable. Where they can, courts try and make sense of, and give meaning to these clauses and enforce them. All these clauses however, have caused much confusion and delay, and often defeated the purposes of efficiency, speed, and privacy.
So how do we ensure we don’t have a pathological clause on our hands?
Rule Number 1 – Don’t be inconsistent. Look at these two clauses. Both are found in the same contract – an insurance policy).
“7. Law and Jurisdiction
It is agreed that this Policy will be governed exclusively by the laws of Brazil. Any disputes arising under, out of or in connection with this Policy shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Brazil.
In case the Insured and the Insurer(s) shall fail to agree as to the amount to be paid under this Policy through mediation as above, such dispute shall then be referred to arbitration under ARIAS Arbitration Rules….
The seat of the arbitration shall be London, England.”
How do you read these two clauses together? One clause makes disputes arising under the contract subject to court litigation in Brazil. Another wants disputes to be referred to arbitration under the ARIAS Arbitration Rules. No other clause in the contract gave any indication as to which should take precedence.
You can’t read them together. They are blatantly contradictory. Justice Cooke agreed.
When faced with these two clauses in the High Court, the only reason he ultimately upheld the arbitration clause (overriding the exclusive jurisdiction language in clause 7) is because of the strong English policy in favour of arbitration. He adopted a very liberal approach to the words chosen by the parties in their arbitration clause and held that the parties, as rational businessmen, must have intended to have arbitration as the sole dispute resolution mechanism for all disputes arising under their policies.
However, it is unlikely that any policy in favour of arbitration is likely to save such pathological clauses in other jurisdictions. It would in all likelihood be held to be void for uncertainty.
So don’t draft inconsistent, pathological arbitration clauses and hope for the courts to save you. If your clients want arbitration, draft watertight and consistent arbitration and governing law clauses and ensure they never have to go to court on account of your bad drafting.
(Sindhu Sivakumar is a member of the faculty on myLaw.net.)
6 replies on “Avoid pathological arbitration clauses. Be consistent.”
in your research, have u come across judgments where in a Governing Law and Jurisdiction clause in addition to the arbitration clause is provided for in an agreement, and the Governing Law and Jurisdiction clause, simply states that “the Agreement shall be governed by the law of [___] and the courts and tribunals at [___] shall have [___] jurisdiction.”
does the clause above read with the arbitration clause amount to pathological clauses?
Having a jurisdiction clause (where you’re giving courts of X country the jurisdiction to hear contractual disputes) and an arbitration clause in the same contract is undoubtedly inconsistent. The arbitration clause is also pathological. It does not make arbitration mandatory for the parties. Nor does it clearly oust the jurisdiction of the courts.
That said, a court may still enforce the arbitration clause – if you are in a pro-arbitration country. Like England, for example. In fact, the clause used in this post came from a recent English case – Sulamerica CIA Nacional de Seguros SA v Enesa Engenharia SA. Lord Cooke’s decision in the High Court (2011 Folio 1519) discusses this point. I didn’t come across an Indian decision on this point. Arguably, the Indian courts would also follow this approach and give effect to an arbitration clause wherever possible.
Btw, I am assuming that your arbitration clause also contains “shall” type language (i.e., there’s a clear inconsistency). The case might be different if the arbitration language is non-mandatory, or if the two clauses have different scopes (deal with different types of disputes).
Hope this helps:)
many thanks for your reply… i will make sure to go through the judgment.
i have come across various documents in India wherein the above mentioned clauses have been provided for. However, I had till dated been interpreting the same for the sake of harmony, that any court proceedings (eg. interim relief, appointment of arbitrators etc.) in relation to the arbitration proceedings would then be dealt with by the court whose jurisdiction the agreement provides.
You may note that the words “in relation to any/contractual disputes” are missing from the governing and jurisdiction clause I have provided to you whereas in the scenario covered by your article, the same are present.
Would like your thoughts/experience on the same.
To know about the Indian view point, BALCO v. Kaiser Aluminium Inc. decision of the Supreme Court of India can be referred as it gives insight about the Seat of Arbitration as well as the place of arbitration and distinguishes between curial law and arbitration law.
As I said before, the arbitration clause will likely be enforceable in spite of the inconsistency. However, ambiguous drafting of this sort may encourage the other side to fight the tribunal’s jurisdiction, commence litigation etc. – as a delaying tactic or because of genuine confusion over the language.
The jurisdiction clause is also not really necessary because it is presumed that any court proceedings that need to take place in relation to the arbitration – like interim relief, etc. – will take place at the courts where the arbitration is ‘seated’. So long as your arbitration clause clearly specifies a ‘seat’, that should suffice in clarifying which courts exercise supervisory jurisdiction.
many thanks… Cheers