Недавно английским судом было принято довольно важное решение, основным смыслом которого является то, что заключение мирового соглашения, содержащего оговорку о порядке разрешения споров, означает, что будет действовать именно эта оговорка, но не аналогичная оговорка в контракте, по поводу исполнения которого возник спор. В рассматриваемом споре Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd [2015] EWHC 67 английский суд установил, что в мировом соглашении стороны договорились о прекращении контракта, по исполнению которого возник спор, причем оговорка о порядке разрешения споров в мировом соглашении предусматривала передачу спора в суд, хотя в предшествующем контракте имела место арбитражная оговорка, так что суд пришел к заключению, что действительной является оговорка, содержащаяся в мировом соглашении. Однако, даже если бы не было достигнуто соглашение о прекращении контракта, по исполнению которого возник спор, действительным было бы признано мировое соглашение, в том числе содержащаяся в нем оговорка о порядке разрешения споров, поскольку утверждение судом мирового соглашения означает новацию обязательства. Таким образом, это судебное решение отнюдь не противоречит принципу автономии арбитражного соглашения (арбитражной оговорки). Суд запретил апелляцию.
The Commercial Court has recently confirmed that where a settlement agreement terminates an earlier agreement and contains a dispute resolution clause which differs from that in the agreement under which the dispute arose, the clause in the settlement agreement will prevail and apply to all disputes arising out of both agreements. In the case of Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd [2015] EWHC 67 the Court refused an appeal under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 by upholding an arbitral tribunal’s decision that an arbitration clause contained within a consultancy agreement was succeeded by a subsequent jurisdiction clause within a settlement agreement. However, it is important to note that the later settlement agreement terminated the original agreement.
The defendant in the proceedings, WesternZagros Limited (“WZL”), had previously entered into a consultancy agreement with the claimant, Monde Petroleum S.A. (“Monde”) which also contained an arbitration agreement. Under the consultancy agreement Monde were to provide consultancy services to WZL in exchange for monthly payments and additional payments on the occurrence of specific events.
WZL ended the monthly payments in January and alleged that the consultancy agreement was terminated in March of the same year. Furthermore they denied that outstanding invoices issued by Monde were due and owning.
In the interests of settling their dispute, WZL and Monde entered into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement contained a clause providing that it should be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and that the parties would agree to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
However, the original consultancy agreement contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the ICC Rules.
Monde brought a claim against MZL in the Commercial Court. Monde alleged that its entry into the settlement agreement was obtained via misrepresentation and/or duress. As a precautionary measure (for limitation purposes), Monde also commenced arbitration proceedings but applied to stay the same as the principal action was intended for the Commercial Court.
WZL brought a counterclaim against Monde in the arbitration proceedings. The counterclaim was declined by the tribunal on the basis that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the matter. WZL appealed the decision of the tribunal.
WZL’s appeal was dismissed by the Commercial Court. Mr Justice Popplewell, the judge presiding over the appeal, noted that the presumption in favour of one-stop adjudication may be particularly persuasive where the latter agreement i.e. the settlement agreement, was entered into for the purposes of terminating the earlier agreement (the consultancy agreement). In the absence of clear drafting, there is a presumption that where parties have entered into a settlement agreement which (i) terminates an earlier agreement and (ii) contains a dispute resolution clause which is inconsistent with the earlier agreement, the dispute resolution clause in the settlement agreement will prevail. As a result, the clause within the settlement agreement replaced the earlier clause in the principal agreement.
Conclusion
In the absence of clear drafting, there is a presumption that where parties have entered into a settlement agreement which (i) terminates an earlier agreement and (ii) contains a dispute resolution clause which is inconsistent with the earlier agreement, the dispute resolution clause in the settlement agreement will prevail. The court was keen to point out that this is not a failure to give effect to the doctrine of separability of arbitration clauses, but in fact the reverse, since it presumes that by agreeing a new clause the parties intended to deal with the arbitration clause in the earlier agreement. It may of course be that this presumption is a fiction ‐ it often appears to be the case that parties view dispute resolution
Furthermore, in the scenario where two agreements between the same parties provide inconsistent arbitration clauses, it is more likely that the settlement agreement clause is to govern all aspects of outstanding disputes. As a result, the clause within the settlement agreement replaced the earlier clause in the principal agreement.
The decision of the court highlights the importance of uniformity between contract terms in different agreements between the same parties, particularly in the context of arbitration clauses. Any settlement agreement should be read in the light of earlier agreements.
Рosts from Davies Battersby
Источник: https://daviesbattersby.wordpress.com/author/daviesbattersby/