In Brief
A company share purchase agreement appointed two persons as "Mediators/Arbitrators" to hold documents in escrow and ensure smooth completion of the transaction. The appellant argued Clause 12 was an arbitration clause requiring dispute resolution. The Supreme Court held that escrow agents holding documents to implement a transaction are not arbitrators. Clause 12's decision-making powers are limited to during the transaction only (pro tem), not to adjudicate disputes. Reading the entire agreement, it aims to prevent disputes and ensure completion, not settle them. The clause therefore is not an arbitration agreement. The appeal was disposed of; the Court also noted the appellant's concerning conduct in pursuing multiple remedies simultaneously.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.