However, as part of the arbitration proceedings brought by the owners against the court administrators, the court was fully constituted and the case was referred to a hearing. It was unknown to shippers. The owners requested that the court explain that the owners are not responsible for the contamination of the cargo. The owners attempted to use this premium to require shippers to have a deckchair of $US 218,936 in accordance with clause 4(b) of the tripartite agreement. The shippers disputed that the arbitral award applies to clause 4(b) and refused to pay the payment of the requested fine. The tripartite agreement did not provide for circumstances in which there were several arbitration proceedings. Specifically, the tripartite agreement did not specify by which court owners should be held liable or not in order to trigger Term 4. The parties should also take into account all factors that may affect the application of the clause under the law in force. These include any mandatory requirements that may exist at the place of arbitration, at the intended place or at the place of performance. The parties may also specify in the arbitration clause that the ICC arbitration procedure may be used as a forum for the final decision of a dispute after an attempt to resolve by other means, such as mediation. Parties wishing to include in their contracts a staggered dispute resolution clause combining ICC arbitration procedure and ICC mediation should refer to the ICC Model Rules of Mediation. The circumstances and the judgment underline the importance of specificity in the design of settlement agreements. This is particularly the case when there are contingencies for future events and more than two parties are involved.
If ICC arbitration is chosen as the preferred method of dispute resolution, it should be decided when negotiating separate contracts, contracts or arbitrations. However, if both parties agree, this can also be recorded after a dispute. It may therefore be time for the Singapore Institute of Architects to revise its model contracts in order to initiate tripartite arbitration proceedings with contractors and architects. Those contracts already provide, in Article 37(8), for tripartite arbitration procedures between an employer, a contractor and a subcontractor. It would be in the spirit of the arbitration clauses to modify the contracts between the employer and the architect, as well as the employer and the contractor, in order to allow arbitration between the three parties. Most contracts between employers and professionals involved in construction projects in Singapore contain an arbitration clause. Arbitration procedures are often preferred to disputes: they are seen as a more private way to settle disputes and allow parties to choose arbitrators with the appropriate expertise to direct their dispute. The Singapore Institute of Architects` standard contract for employers and architects, the conditions of appointment and the services and terms of payment of the architect, is usually used. The Institute`s articles and conditions for construction contracts are the most widely used construction contract between employers and contractors in Singapore. Both contracts contain an arbitration clause. However, the arbitration clauses contained in these contracts do not provide for tripartite arbitration involving the employer, architect and contractor.
In certain circumstances, this effectively excludes the possibility of arbitration proceedings. In the arbitration proceedings brought by the owners against the shippers, each party appointed an arbitrator, but no other substantial action was taken. . . .