The UK Supreme Court in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO “Insurance Company Chubb” has resolved a long-running debate within English law: when looking for a choice of law to govern an arbitration agreement, should there be a presumption favouring the law of the main contract or the law of the seat? There was unanimous agreement amongst the five judges that it should be the law of the main contract. The Court was, however, divided on the application of the law and, therefore, whether the parties’ dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement. While the minority approach claims to be more principled, the reasoning of the majority is more pragmatic in reaching a conclusion that upholds the arbitration agreement. The decision offers an extensive review of authorities and principles relevant not only to the governing law question but also the interpretation of arbitration agreements more generally. It is reasonable to assume that, in the future, the case will be cited frequently in England as well as other common law jurisdictions.
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||International Arbitration Law Review|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Mar 2021|
- Arbitration Agreements
- Applicable law
- Enka v Chubb