Does the law prohibit the resolution of any type of dispute through arbitration?
The court held that the purpose of the Arbitration Law is to allow the parties to agree to resolve disputes through arbitration rather than an arbitration tribunal. Most types of commercial disputes can be arbitrated. However, case law also determines that certain claims may not be arbitrary (see, for example, Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v J Sir David Richards and another  EWCA Civ 855; Riverrock Securities Limited v International Bank of St Petersburg (shares Company)  EWHC 2483 (Comm)). The claim may not be arbitrary in the following circumstances:
- The requested relief requires only a court order.
- The requested relief involves the interests of third parties in a relevant sense.
- The claim representative attempted to delegate to the arbitrator a matter of public interest, which could not be determined within the limits of the private contract procedure.
The court is willing to interpret arbitration agreements extensively to cover contractual and non-contractual disputes (Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v. Privalov  UKHL 40). In this case, Lord Hoffman believes that the construction of the arbitration clause should start from the assumption that the parties who are rational entrepreneurs are likely to intend that any dispute arising out of the relationship between the two parties be resolved by the same arbitration tribunal. Furthermore, if the elements of the dispute cause non-arbitrable problems, this does not mean that the entire dispute is not subject to the arbitration agreement between the parties (Aqaba Container Terminal (PVT) Co v Soletanche Bachy France SAS  EWHC 471 (Communication ). However, the principles of Fiona Trust must be carefully applied to the facts of a particular case. For example, the Court of Appeal heard an application for an injunction against a lawsuit that restricted the company’s claims in the New South Wales courts against the rights of “prospective parties” as assignees of certain rights. The third-party contributes to the party’s monetary judgment. Although the claims are related to the partnership agreement, because the third party is not a party to the agreement, the court held that it is extremely unlikely that the partners will include these claims in their arbitration clause. Therefore, the transfer of claims is not within the scope of the arbitration clause and cannot be restricted (Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v. John Forster Emmott  EWCA Civ 51).
Disputes that are not arbitrable are very limited:
- When employees have legal rights, they are given the right to hear cases in labor courts. It is impossible to submit disputes to arbitration because the only way to resolve disputes is (Clyde & Co LLP v. Winkelhof  EWHC 668).
- Bankruptcy proceedings are subject to the statutory regime stipulated in the Bankruptcy Law of 1986 (however, bankruptcy requests are not automatically considered non-arbitrary: see Riverrock Securities Limited v. International Bank of St Petersburg (limited company)  EWHC 2483 (communication)).
- Criminal matters.
(This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, or Religion, Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, White Code VIA Mediation and Arbitration Centre Foundation shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.)