000			01540cam a2200217 4500
001			ABS65017
008			020123n2001 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u116403
245			_aStay of judicial proceedings
260			_c2001
490			_aArbitration Law Monthly _v1(8) October 2001, 9-10(2)
520			_aArticle 8 of the Model Law requires a court to refuse to hear an action which falls within the scope of an arbitration clause. The only exceptions are where the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. The English Arbitration Act 1996 s9 is identically phrased and the New Zealand Arbitration Act 1996 incorporates the Model Law almost word for word. Considers the issue of whether a court, when facing proceedings in which the claimant has asserted that the dispute fallls outside the scope of the arbitration clause, should decide that issue for itself or leave it to the arbitrators. Discusses the New Zealand case "Clarence Holdings Ltd v Prendos Ltd" which addressed this issue. It was found that the arbitration clause was inoperative because it was only found in the lease form and not in the fitting out agreement. The claimants were therefore allowed to take their case in court. [PARTLY TAKEN FROM JOURNAL HEADNOTE]
590			_aABS
650			_aCLARENCE HOLDINGS LTD V PRENDOS LTD
650			_aARBITRATION CLAUSES
650			_aLEASE
650			_aNEW ZEALAND
650			_aARBITRATION ACT 1996
690			_aDispute resolution _96236
942			_n0
999			_c69331 _d69331