UK: Why All The Fuss?

Last Updated: 29 July 2007
Article by Steven Friel and Rowan Planterose

The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & ors has caused considerable excitement throughout the London and international arbitration community.

Described by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators as ‘fundamentally important’, Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation & ors v Yuri Privalov & ors [2007] was raised for discussion by no fewer than six separate arbitration practitioners, including Steven Friel of Davies Arnold Cooper, at the recent London Court of International Arbitration European Users’ Council symposium in Madrid.

Is this case really a landmark for English arbitration? In itself, probably not. However, coming as it did on the tenth anniversary of the Arbitration Act 1996, a time of reflection on the development of London as a centre for international arbitration, the case provides an interesting focus on a number of issues, including:

  • the increasing tendency for liberal construction of arbitration clauses;
  • the judicial display of trust in arbitration as a ‘one-stop shop’ for the resolution of disputes;
  • the coming-of-age of the doctrines of separability and competence-competence; and
  • the ability of international arbitration to deal with complicated allegations of fraud and bribery in international disputes.

‘Law and Litigation’ Clause

The contracts contained a ‘law and litigation’ clause, which provided as follows:

41(a) This charter shall be construed and the relations between the parties determined in accordance with the laws of England.

(b) Any dispute arising under this charter shall be decided by the High Court in London to whose jurisdiction the parties hereby agree.

(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, but without prejudice to any party’s right to arrest or maintain the arrest of any maritime property, either party may, by giving written notice of election to the other party, elect to have any such dispute referred… to arbitration in London…

  1. A party shall lose its right to make such an election only if:

(a) it receives from the other party a written notice of dispute which –

  • states expressly that a dispute has arisen out of this charter;
  • specifies the nature of the dispute; and
  • refers expressly to this clause 41(c)


(b) it fails to give notice of election to have the dispute referred to arbitration not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice of dispute… [emphases added]

Fiona Trust

Facts A dispute arose out of a series of charterparties (the charterparties) entered into between a Russian group of shipowners (the owners) and a number of chartering companies (the charterers). Itwas alleged by the owners that the charterparties, and numerous other agreements entered into by the parties, were procured by bribery. The extent of the alleged bribery went far beyond the charterparties, which formed only a small part of an overall set of fraud allegations.

Court proceedings were commenced in England relating to the fraud allegations on the whole. One of the claims made in the English proceedings was that the charterparties had been validly rescinded and that restitution of benefits under the charterparties should be made.

The contracts contained a key ‘law and litigation’ clause, details of which can be seen in the box above. The charterers commenced arbitration proceedings pursuant to this clause. The owners therefore applied to the English Commercial Court under s72 of the 1996 Act, seeking to restrain the arbitration proceedings on the basis that the charterparties, and the arbitration clauses contained therein, had been validly rescinded. In turn, the charterers made a cross-application under s9 of the 1996 Act for a stay of the ongoing court proceedings for rescission.

First instance decision

At first instance, Morison J declined to stay the court claims for rescission and restrained the arbitration proceedings pending the trial of the court action. He held that the question of whether the owners validly entered into the charterparties could not be said to be a dispute that arose out of the charterparties, and it certainly did not arise ‘under’ the charterparties. Further, he decided that the arbitration clause was not severable from the matrix of charterparties where rescission was an available remedy. Accordingly, he ruled that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute.

The charterers appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, based primarily on a wide construction of the clause and a rigorous application of the doctrine of severability.

Issues under consideration

Liberal construction of the arbitration clause The first question to be considered by the Court of Appeal was whether the arbitration clause was wide enough to cover allegations that bribery had induced the charterparties. Counsel for the parties pursued arguments based on the differences between arbitration clauses that refer to disputes ‘arising under’ and disputes ‘arising out of’ the relevant contract. After citing a large number of authorities (from Heyman v Darwins Ltd [1942] to The Delos [2001]) on the construction of arbitration clauses and the subtle differences in language used therein, Longmore LJ held that the arbitration clause was wide enough to allow the arbitral tribunal jurisdiction to decide the bribery allegations. He stated:

… the time has now come for a line of some sort to be drawn and a fresh start made at any rate for cases in an international commercial context… If businessmen go to the trouble of agreeing that their disputes be heard… by a tribunal of their choice they do not expect (at any rate when they are making the contract in the first place) that time and expense will be taken in lengthy argument about… whether any particular cause of action comes within the meaning of the particular phrase that they have chosen in their arbitration clause. If any business man did want to exclude disputes about the validity of a contract, it would be comparatively simple to say so… It seems to us that any jurisdiction or arbitration clause should be liberally construed.

This statement has been welcomed by many. It is widely considered that one of the main threats to the flexibility of London arbitration and to the success of the 1996 Act is the increasingly litigious nature of the process and the tendency by unwilling parties to arbitration to engage in lengthy jurisdictional arguments based on semantic readings of the arbitration clauses in question. The Court of Appeal has, to large extent, now put a lid on these arguments and sent the very clear message that if you refer to arbitration, then arbitration you shall have.

One-stop arbitration

The Court of Appeal judgment can be viewed as particularly supportive to arbitration if we consider two competing considerations that the court had to take into account:

  • On the one hand, there was the fact that, if the arbitration was allowed to proceed, it would almost certainly do so concurrently with the High Court litigation, in which the fraud allegations were being considered in a wider context.
  • On the other, there was what Longmore LJ described as the presumption in favour of ‘one-stop arbitration’, by which he meant that, rather than a court deciding on whether a contract should be rectified, avoided or rescinded, followed by an arbitration on the merits of the dispute, itwas to be presumed that the arbitrators should decide on all the relevant issues.

That the presumption in favour of one-stop arbitration was not rebutted by the resultant concurrency of procedures (High Court litigation and arbitration) shows how far the English courts have come from the days when a presumption in favour of arbitration was readily rebutted. In this context of supporting arbitration, Longmore LJ’s judgment in Fiona Trust can be seen as following a path taken by Lord Steyn in Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo SpA & ors [2006].


It has long been accepted in English law that an arbitration clause is a separate agreement that survives the destruction (or other termination) of the parent contract. The principle is that the arbitration agreement gives rise to a distinct legal obligation and is not conditional on the rest of the contract. This principle is given statutory form by s7 of the 1996 Act, which states:

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, an arbitration agreement which forms or was intended to form part of another agreement (whether or not in writing) shall not be regarded as invalid, non-existent or ineffective because that other agreement is invalid, or did not come into existence or has become ineffective, and it shall for that purpose be treated as a distinct agreement.

In Fiona Trust, the limits of the doctrine of separability were tested. The evidence before the courtwas that the owners would not have entered into the charterparties at all if they had been aware that their employees had been bribed. With no contract, the argument went, there could have been no arbitration agreement.

Longmore LJ posed the question of ‘whether the assertion of invalidity goes to the validity of the arbitration clause, as opposed to the validity of the charterparties as a whole of which the arbitration agreements are a part.’ In answering this question, he stated:

It is not enough to say that the bribery impeaches the whole contract unless there is some special reason for saying that the bribery impeaches the arbitration clause in particular. There is no such reason here.

The separability doctrine is, of course, not peculiar to English law. Many jurisdictions have adopted Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, which provides that ‘an arbitration clause which forms part of a contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract’. See, for example, s1040(1) of the German Code of Civil Procedure and s13B of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance.

Despite its almost universal acceptance, the doctrine of separability has been under attack. Many arbitrators will be comforted, however, by the knowledge that the English Court of Appeal is not the only important domestic court to vigorously defend it. In the 2006 case of Buckeye Check Cashing Inc v John Cardegna et al, the US Supreme Court, by a majority of 7-1, reaffirmed that the doctrine applies in the US. In overturning a decision of the Florida Supreme Court, which had held that Florida state law did not allow parts of an illegal and void contract to be severable, the US Supreme Court established that the landmark 1967 decision in Prima Paint Corp v Flood & Conklin Mfg Co continued to hold good.

Competence-competence principle

Although not referred to in terms by the Court of Appeal, the Fiona Trust case provides further support in England for the principle of competence-competence and takes us further away from the pre-1996 days, when itwas generally thought that arbitrators could do no more than express a view as to whether they had jurisdiction – the ultimate decision always being reserved for the courts.

The question of whether England should more fully embrace the principle of competence-competence was raised recently by a body set up to review the 1996 Act on its tenth anniversary. As it stands, a tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction is open to challenge under s67. Further, when considering the challenge, an English court is entitled to consider the question of jurisdiction de novo and is in no way bound by the tribunal’s findings of fact or law. Although the review committee concluded that itwas not yet time to amend this position in English law, the committee did state that further research was necessary on the question whether the current English position has a detrimental effect on London arbitration – are international parties wary of arbitrating in London due to the risk of English courts rehearing and re-deciding jurisdictional issues? This is a research task that Davies Arnold Cooper has decided to undertake and we hope to publish our findings by the end of this year.

Complex international frauds

In the context of the Fiona Trust case, it has been asked whether London arbitration is best equipped to deal with multi-jurisdictional fraud allegations. Can an arbitral tribunal move quickly enough, and does it have the requisite powers of subpoena, investigation and preservation of assets to ensure that justice is done in these cases? Many would say that, together with the assistance and supervisory jurisdiction of the English High Court, there is no reason why London arbitration cannot handle these cases effectively. However, would an alleged victim of a complex international fraud, who is forced to arbitration despite the allegations of fraud, necessarily agree?


Fiona Trust provides Court of Appeal authority that arbitration clauses in international commercial contracts should be construed in a liberal and expansive fashion. The Court has drawn a line under previous case law, which had laboured on the precise forms of wording of dispute resolution clauses, and has set a precedent that the English courts should no longer scrutinise the minutiae of the wording. In doing so, the Court has further strengthened England’s status as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, where commercial parties will benefit from greater certainty that arbitration clauses will be upheld.

In addition, this case has upheld the all-embracing doctrine of severability and confirmed that it applies to contracts where it has been alleged that the contract in question has been procured by bribery. The Court of Appeal has reiterated that, under s7 of the 1996 Act, an arbitration clause that forms part of a contract will be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract and that it is possible to arbitrate disputes as to the illegality of a contract, including circumstances where there has been alleged bribery.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.