The Supreme Court affirmed the conclusion in first instance that the dispute between the parties had to be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause in a distribution agreement. The Court held that the lower court should have ascertained whether there had been a meeting of the minds in respect of who were the original parties to the distribution agreement, but concluded that it was unnecessary to refer the case back to the lower court: even if the clause had not been binding between the parties at the time of the conclusion of the distribution agreement, the respondent could rely thereon because it had performed under the distribution agreement for many years, with the consent of all parties.

Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, S. W. Schill (ed.), Vol. XLV (2020)


Original full text
Full text decision SWITZERLAND 52

Excerpt decision SWITZERLAND 52

Topics in SWITZERLAND 52
¶222 » Arbitrator’s competence and separability of the arbitration clause
¶226 » Third parties (see also Art. I sub F “problems concerning the identity of the respondent”, ¶106)

< Back to overview