In its decision, the Tribunal reaffirmed the strong federal policy in favour of arbitration. It pointed out that, because of the review of the Supreme Court`s precedent, the applicants had the burden of rebutting the presumption by demonstrating “by clear implication” that the compromise clause should not take effect at the expiry of the contract or by demonstrating by “positive assurance” that the compromise clause did not cover the dispute invoked. While this burden is difficult, the Court stressed that it “would not have the effect of abrogating the clear intent of the parties or resulting in a result inconsistent with the clear text of the treaty, simply because the policy that favours arbitration is involved.” At Huffman, the applicants were employed by Hilltop under an employment contract that included both a compromise clause and a survival clause. The survival clause explicitly listed several clauses that stipulated that these clauses “survive the expiry or termination of the previous termination” of the contract. However, several clauses were not included in the survival clause, including the compromise clause, the non-compete clause, the separation clause and the integration clause. At the request for labour-related complaints in federal court, Hilltop attempted to dismiss the case and force arbitration on the basis of the compromise clause contained in the plaintiffs` employment contracts. The District Court dismissed Hilltop`s application and the court set it aside. Most modern arbitration laws contain an explicit provision on separation, including Hong Kong (point 34), both in common and civil law; Sweden (section 3); Brazil (Article 8); Spain (Article 22); Portugal (Article 18.2). As a conceptual premise of international arbitration, the doctrine of dissociability has been endorsed over the years by many courts. Many national laws have recognized that the disability, non-existence, illegality or termination of the material contract does not affect the validity, legality or existence of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly, arbitrators have the prerogative to consider all challenges related to the existence, validity, legality or termination of the main contract, as these challenges do not affect the arbitration agreement itself.
11.2 Arbitration. If the parties are unable to resolve these disputes or disputes within 30 days of referring a dispute or disagreement to their designated officials, these disputes or disputes are subject to a final and binding arbitration procedure, in accordance with the International Chamber of Commerce(Paris) Arbitration and Arbitration Regulations, as provided below. 8.3 Survival of certain rights at expiry or termination. All rights and obligations granted to the parties under this agreement expire immediately at the expiry of the term of the agreement (as shown in point 8.1 above) or with the exception of item 8.2. Agreement: The court found that the applicant`s FCRA claim was not a result of the defendant`s performance of his contractual obligations.