A comparative study of the approach of the courts in determining jurisdiction in the assumption of the existence of a condition or arbitration agreement in the laws of Iran and England.

Document Type : Scientific Research

Authors

1 ph.d.student,Departement of privat law,SR.C.,Islamic Azad University,Tehran,Iran.

2 Private law department of mofid university, qom.iran

3 Professor Department of private Law, faculty of law,Tehran University,Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In dealing with the arbitration clause or agreement in the contract .the courts in the legal systems choose different approaches regarding the determining of jurisdiction.Although in most of the countries. if there is an arbitration agreement , the courts refuse to hear the case but this refusal of the courts to hear the case does not happen uniformly. however , the adoption of the decision - making method can have certain legal and judicial consequences on fair proceedings and arbitration. On the other hand, not only the adoption of the correct decision can prevent the postponement of the proceedings.but it can also prevent the conflict of judicial and arbitration jurisdiction or prevent procrastination of proceedings , and the issuance of these orders can prevent the realization of the conflict between jurisdiction and arbitration . in the English case law , courts issues stay of proceeding or Anti – suit injunction according to circumstance . Iran's law has not provided a special text regarding the above orders in the law , therefore , different approaches have been adopted in the judicial procedure and the courts issue orders to reject the lawsuit , not to hear the lawsuit , and lack jurisdiction. In this article, we examine the issuance of orders for the stay of proceedings and the Anti – suit injunction and the possibility of issuing these orders in Iranian law, and finally , with an analytical - descriptive method and a comparative approach , based on legal principles and standards

Keywords

Main Subjects