The Lovelock clause had a different fate. The clause claimed to be „[a] ny dispute and/or claim“ for arbitration in England and „[a] ny other dispute“ at the Foreign Trade Arbitration Commission of the USSR Chamber of Commerce in Moscow. Lord Denning noted that the two references „impossible to reconcile“ and „beyond the mind of man – or at least beyond my mind – to say what dispute goes into which part of the clause“. This case is an important reminder of the need to clearly define the disputes that fall within the scope of any mechanism when establishing several dispute settlement mechanisms. With the Disputes Clause Finder, the dream of a world without pathological litigation and arbitration clauses may not be unrealistic. In addition, not all types of defects relating to the administrative body can be corrected by interpretation. In TMT Co Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc and others, the High Court refused to grant a stay of proceedings on the basis of a clause stating that „any dispute arising out of these terms or a subcontracted contract, unless resolved between us, according to the arbitration rules of the exchange or another organisation that the exchanges in question may conduct, they are subject to arbitration and both parties agree that such an agreement will not be inappropriately withheld before any of us has recourse to the jurisdiction of the court. The tribunal found that the implication of a „relevant exchange“ was necessary for arbitration proceedings under the clause, but that no such „exchange“ was involved in the relationship between the parties. Instead, trades were settled by a clearing house which was another type of organization. The General Court rejected the argument that the clause must be read in such a way that it refers to a clearing house as an alternative to an exchange, on the ground that this would require a substantial recast of the clause. According to Insigma, the ICC revised its rules in 2012 to clarify that „the [ICC] Court is the only body empowered to manage arbitration proceedings under the [ICC] rules (see Article 1.2) of the 2017 ICC Rules).
In HKL vs. Rizq, the Supreme Court of Singapore held that a pathological arbitration clause „may or may not depend on the nature and extent of its pathology“ (see paragraph [12]). However, Singapore courts will generally attempt to „give effect to this clause and will prefer an interpretation that does so over an interpretation that does not“ (see paragraph [13]). In that case, it was clear that, although the parties had expressed their intention to arbitrate, they had somehow referred to an entity that did not exist in Singapore („Arbitration Committee“). The seat of the arbitration shall be London, England. The decision is consistent with the approach taken by previous court decisions in Singapore, such as Insigma Technology Co Ltd, v Alstom Technology Ltd[2009] 3 SLR (R) 936 (arbitration clause providing for a non-existent arbitral institution deemed operational) and HKL Group Co Ltd v Rizq International Holdings Pte Ltd[2013] SGHCR 5 (arbitration clause which provides for an arbitration procedure managed by SIAC), but applies the arbitration rules of the International Chamber of Commerce („ICC“), that a pathological arbitration clause would not be overlooked….