Different dispute resolution clauses in related contracts. Which one prevails?

If you have a number of related contracts between different parties and they have different dispute resolution clauses, which one do you use?
Author(s): Jo O’Dea
Four people in business attire are gathered around a table in a bright office. Two individuals are seated, reviewing documents with model clauses, while the other two stand, observing and discussing. A small plant and glass bottle are on the table under a skylight.

Summary

In ZPMC- Red Box Energy Services Ltd vs Philip Jeffry Adkins and Others [2021] HKCFI 3501, there were 3 related contracts between the parties.  Two of the contracts provided for dispute resolution through mediation and the third through the Hong Kong courts. A payment dispute between the parties forced them to ask the Court to decide which clause prevailed. The Court found that the clause which was the “at the centre of gravity” of the argument was the “winning” clause. 

Two people are sitting and reviewing a document together. One person is holding the document while the other points to a section on the paper. They are surrounded by laptops, papers, and pens, suggesting a collaborative work or study session focused on dispute resolution.

The facts

ZPMC is a joint venture company involved in ocean-going vessels and oil and gas projects. The defendants were: 

  1. the former CEO and a director of ZMPC (Adkins) 
  2. an advisory company that provided consulting services to ZPMC (Fathomless Advisory Services Ltd) (FSA). 
  3. a shareholder of ZPMC (RBF HK Ltd) (RBK) 

We need to know that FSA and RBK were controlled by Adkins. 

The 3 contracts containing the conflicting clauses were: 

  1. a CEO agreement between ZPMC and Adkins with a clause referring disputes to the Hong Kong courts (CEO Contract). 
  2. a service agreement between ZPMC and FSA with a clause referring disputes to HKIAC arbitration (FSA agreement), and 
  3. a shareholder’s agreement between RBF and ZPMC also a clause referring disputes to HKIAC arbitration (SHA agreement)
Three people are sitting at a white desk in an office. The woman on the left is holding a pen and addressing the two men in front of her. All three are holding documents labeled "contract," likely discussing dispute resolution. A glass of a dark beverage and several pens are on the desk.

At some point Adkins made payments of over 3.5 million from ZPMC to FSA and RBF which ZPMC alleged were not authorised.  ZPMC brought court proceedings against him in Hong Kong, alleging breach of fiduciary duties, contractual duties and breach of trust by Adkins.  ZPMC also made claims against FSA and RBF as constructive trustees for knowing receipt of payments from ZPMC. 

Relying on the arbitration clauses in the FSA and SHA agreements, Adkins, FSA and FBC applied for a stay of court proceedings.  They wanted the dispute to be referred to the HKIAC (Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre) for arbitration (as set out in the RBF and SHA agreements). 

Decision

When determining which clauses take priority in interrelated agreements, the starting point for the Court was set out in Houtai Investment Holdings Ltd v Leung Yat Tung & Others [2021] HKCFI 1504.: 

  1. First it is presumed that the parties intend all disputes from the relationship to be decided by the same tribunal (the “one stop” presumption set out in in Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40), 
  2. BUT the “one stop presumption” is refutable and each arbitration clause must be considered in its own context; 
  3. In particular, the “one stop” presumption is not applicable, where there are multiple related commercial agreements (each dealing with different aspects of the parties’ relationship) and each containing its own dispute resolution clause. The Court should instead identify the nature of the claim and the agreement that has the closest connection with such dispute (also referred to as the agreement at the centre of gravity of the dispute). 
A person in a suit and glasses is sitting on a white couch, meticulously reviewing documents related to dispute resolution. They appear focused and engaged, with a pen in hand, in a well-lit room with white walls and furnishings.

Keeping the original claim in mind, the Court held that the substance of the dispute was ZPMC’s claims against Adkins for breaches of fiduciary duties, contractual duties and trust. These were personal duties that Adkins owed due to his position as a former director and CEO of ZPMC. The CEO agreement was at the at the centre of gravity of the dispute, and in this agreement, the parties agreed to the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts. 

For the claims against FSA and RBK, there was no allegation that they had committed any breaches of their respective agreements. Their liability was secondary (knowing receipt of funds), which was (or would be, if any) determined by Adkins liability. 

The Court dismissed the defendant’s application. 

It is interesting that the Court noted that ZPMC had made a deliberate decision not to include arbitration as a dispute resolution forum.  It had wanted the Court to be the determining body in any dispute with their (former) CEO.  Also of note was the arbitration clauses in the SHA and FSA agreements.  These stated that they would cover disputes between the parties that came from that agreement. 

Conclusion

In this case, the Court was easily able to establish what was at the centre of gravity of the dispute,.and determine that the ZPMC claims against Adkins, the CEO were the main claim.  This case serves as a reminder that: 

  1. Parties should consider what dispute resolution provisions they have in related, or linked contracts. They should also consider what dispute resolution forum is appropriate, depending on the nature of the contract. 
  2. It is also important that any dispute resolution clause in agreements accurately sets out what the scope of the clause will be. 

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

A scattered pile of U.S. hundred-dollar bills is spread across a white surface. A pair of yellow rectangular glasses rests on top of the pile, adding a splash of color to the scene.
Arbitration

Arbitration Act: Proposed amendments

On 9 March 2017, the Arbitration Amendment Bill (the Bill) was introduced to Parliament. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) to:

  • ensure arbitration clauses in trust deeds are given effect;
  • extend the presumption of confidentiality in arbitration to a rebuttable presumption of confidentiality in related court proceedings under the Act;
    • clearly define the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award and bring
  • New Zealand’s approach into line with foreign arbitration legislation; and
  • confirm the consequence of failing to raise a timely objection to an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Learn more
A close-up image of several gold bars of varying sizes. The largest bar prominently displays "GLOBAL INTERGOLD," "100 g," "FINE GOLD," "999.9," and other specifications. Smaller bars with similar inscriptions are scattered around it.
Arbitration

Going for gold – Latest ruling from English Court of Appeal in tug of war over Venezuelan gold reserves

Deutsche Bank AG v Central Bank of Venezuela & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 742 is the latest instalment in the UK battle between two rival boards of Venezuela’s Central bank (the Central Bank) for control of Venezuela’s gold reserves and for authority to represent the Central Bank in related arbitration in London. With Venezuela’s 2018 election resulting in political turmoil over who is its legitimate President, the UK Supreme Court ruled in 2021 that the English courts must ‘speak with one voice’ with the UK Government, regarding who it recognises. The disputes over the gold are still ongoing and have already produced a series of court judgments on preliminary issues and the effect of the UK Government’s changing recognition.
Learn more
A large yellow and white front loader with a raised scoop is parked in a sand quarry. Behind the loader are various layers of sand and soil in different shades, and in the distance, there are green trees atop the sandy hills.
Arbitration

Harman obligation released for documents from mining arbitration

The implied undertaking of confidentiality in Harman v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 not to use documents discovered in a proceeding for collateral purposes was released in Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd v Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd [No 21] [2023] WASC 169, with some conditions.
Learn more

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.