ING Bank/OWBG submitted that this analysis was erroneous and that the correct interpretation of a claim under S.67 AA in 1996 was to determine whether or not there was a valid arbitration agreement in the underlying bunker supply contracts. ING/OWBG relied on A/B in which the Court held that the challenge to one court`s arbitration decision to replace one party with another was not within the jurisdiction of S.67 AA 1996. The Court considered this case to consider whether there is an arbitration agreement within the jurisdiction of S.67. This was not a situation where one party was replaced by another. In December 2013, OWBG included a credit facility with ING Bank for $700 million. The facility guarantee was included in the omnibus security agreement, which provided for the transfer to ING Bank of all OWBG`s “rights, titles and interests on delivery requests.” “Delivery requests” are defined as “any amount due or due… as part of a supply contract.” “Delivery contract” meant “any single contract… sales of petroleum products traded by the group.” OwBG went bankrupt in November 2014 and the guarantee became enforceable. The validity of the transfer decisions was not questioned. The Supreme Court`s decision confirms the Polish courts` favourable approach to arbitration, particularly with regard to the validity and scope of arbitration agreements that should be welcomed. It makes sense that B should be bound by the arbitration clause in relation to C (although they never agreed on arbitration). At the conclusion of the contract, B opted for an arbitration procedure instead of a government tribunal. The fact that he now has a new opponent does not change this fundamental decision.
If B had wanted to ensure that it would be bound only to arbitration A and not to C, it should have established it in the contract. Suppose an agreement or arbitration clause between the original parties of the main contract (creditor/transferee and debtor/debtor-debtor): the arbitration agreement applies only to disputes between these first two parties, or can the arbitration clause also apply to disputes between the assignee (who is not a party to the original contract) and the debtor? There are cases where parties were bound by arbitration agreements to which they were not originally parties. We provide an overview of some of the most common scenarios and examples, including the “business group” doctrine, divestment, universal succession and third-party rights. The complainant proceeded to the Supreme Court, which also dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court approved the position upheld by the scientists and the case law that an arbitration agreement against the assignee can be invoked for a claim that covers it. Post-assignment events involving the assignee (e.g. (b) are negligible in this regard. The nature of the assignment (its fiduciary and conservatory nature) can only concern parties who can assert a right (i.e. the judicial administrator or assignee), which is a relevant question in Polish law, and not whether the case should be referred to arbitration.