Originally from: 
Swiss International Arbitration Law Reports (SIALR) - 2008 Volume 2 No. 1

Preview Page

No. 10

X. GmbH v. Y. Corporation
[The Ferrotitanium Supplies from Russia]
No. 4A_452/2007
Headnote
The interpretation and construction of arbitration agreements
follow the general rules governing the interpretation and
construction of contracts.
Where two related agreements contain arbitration clauses
providing for different kinds of arbitration, such clauses are binding
on an arbitrator. An arbitrator appointed pursuant to the
arbitration clause contained in one contract is therefore entitled to
deny jurisdiction as to claims arising under another contract
containing a different arbitration clause.
An arbitrator has no duty to give reasons in his award on each
and every point raised by either party in the course of the
arbitration.
Summary of the Decision
Between 2000 and 2005 X. and Y. concluded (i) two exclusive
contracts for the supply of ferrotitanium by Y. to X., and (ii) several
multiple delivery contracts. The exclusive contracts were stated to be
governed by Swiss law and referred any disputes arising thereunder to
the jurisdiction of the courts of Zurich. The other contracts were stated
to be governed by Russian law and contained a Moscow arbitration
clause. In 2006 the parties agreed in a Supplement to the exclusive
contracts that disputes arising out of or in connection with such contracts
would be referred to arbitration under the Rules of International
Arbitration of the Swiss Chambers of Commerce. X. brought an
arbitration against Y. in Zurich seeking relief in relation to the exclusive
contracts as well as the other contracts. The arbitrator declined
jurisdiction with respect to the relief relating to the other contracts.
X. brought setting aside proceedings against the award declining
jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that the interpretation and construction of
arbitration agreements follow the rules of interpretation and construction
applicable to contracts. In interpreting a contract, one must determine
the contracting parties’ actual mutual intention, and, in the absence of
actual intention or evidence in that respect, the parties’ presumed mutual
intentions.