Supreme Court Rules For Arbitration

The person authorized to represent one’s interests in court is also empowered to represent one’s interests in arbitration. This is the immediate conclusion that follows from the Supreme Commercial Court's decision in yet another case between Tander and Moiseeva.

This is the third time when the Supreme Court turned to the dispute over the $4,500 of rent payments between an entrepreneur and Magnit, one of the largest retail chains in Russia with a turnover of about $8 billion.

In essence, the matter is about whether a company that signed an arbitration agreement and participated in the proceedings can put the system upside down and refuse to execute the award on the grounds that the power of attorney issued by the company to its branch does not specifically mention the authority to arbitrate. It turns out that it can’t.

In 2009 Svetlana Moiseeva, a sole trader, filed a claim with the arbitration court at the Ulyainovsk Chamber of Trade and Commerce against Tander for recovery of rent payments. The tribunal ruled in her favour. The respondent then filed a barrage of suits in state courts to invalidate the award claiming that the director of its branch, who entered into the contract and then, through an attorney, participated in the proceedings, was not properly authorized.

Also on the case here.