Finally, the NY convention proposes that there be categories of issues that are not arbiters.23 This would also be a reason for the cancellation of an arbitration agreement. In order to avoid possible lengthy discussions about the validity of an arbitration agreement, it is important that: the reasons why recognition and enforcement of the award will be retained are strictly limited, particularly in the case of a foreign arbitration award and its validity must be determined in accordance with the New York Convention. Tugendhat J in Accentuate Ltd/Asigra Inc  EWHC 2655 (QB) has been added to the list of prices that cannot be recognized and applied in England. The parties never entered into the separate arbitration agreement. The question therefore arose as to whether the compromise clause of the main contract was null and void. The material validity of the compromise clause was German law. This case is a welcome confirmation of the application of the jurisdictional principle in cases where the existence of the arbitration agreement is contentious. It is now clear that parties challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement in Singapore should do so before the Arbitration Tribunal itself, unless there is very strong evidence that there is no arbitration agreement. With its decision, the Singapore court strengthened its pro-arbiter attitude and the policy of primacy over the arbitral tribunal. In Sheltam Rail Co (Pty) Ltd/Mirambo Holdings Ltd  EWHC 829 (Comm), the applicant commenced proceedings to challenge a sentence on judicial grounds and then attempted to close the proceedings with a declaration of dismissal. For Mr.
Aikens, the question was whether the notice should be set aside in order for the validity of the award to be determined by the English court or whether it was appropriate to leave to the arbitrator`s court an outstanding issue that could be raised in the context of an enforcement proceeding abroad. In most cases, the question of the validity or scope of a compromise clause returns to the court where Part A initiates legal proceedings, and Part B seeks to suspend confidence in an alleged compromise clause.