WTE V RCR

enforceability. In WTE v RCR case, the Honored Vickery J stated “a contractual clause requiring senior executives to meet ‘to attempt to resolve the dispute or to agree on methods of doing so’ amounted to an “agreement to agree”, which is unenforceable at law”, he refused to stay a proceeding pending the parties compliance with that clause.

Other factors that the parties might take consideration when drafting the dispute resolution clause include timeframe or limit for each stage of pre-arbitration proceeding s and arbitration proceeding, language, discovery, appointment of experts, arrangement of fees and costs, confidentiality, etc.

The parties are better advised that these indicative clause regarding these considerations, which provided precisely for easily applicable, may not conflict with the governing law, the general default rules of arbitration institution or mandatory procedure rules of selected arbitration seat, aim to strike an balance of enjoying the autonomy and fulfill the special needs of parties and reducing the potential controversy and obstacle in implementation of any particular clause.

CASE ANALYSIS

Further more, the judge remarked the prima facie review principle when reviewing the arbitration jurisdiction and emphasized that the court should not usurp the function of the arbitrators, unless the point was clear. The court read that clause 4.3 is a self-contained provision on how any dispute or contest over billing should be determined provided on that it prescribed formal notification of disputes, a tight timetable for amicable settlement “not to exceed 14 days” and “then, the parties will submit the difference to the Hong Kong Court. The court drew the conclusion that billing disputes should be dealt with differently and separately from clause11.3. The court did accordingly not stay the litigation and dismissed Vectone’s