These legal systems may be elected (explicitly or implicitly) by the parties. They may also differ. For example, the parties may decide that their material rights and obligations arising from a construction contract are governed by French law, but that any subsequent arbitration proceedings have their headquarters in London, with the arbitrators adopting English legal procedures and their arbitration agreement in accordance with English law. This may be desirable, for example, to seek a “neutral” forum in the country of origin of one of the parties, or if one or both parties have concerns about the independence of national courts. While this relevant decision provides certainty as to the concept of inseparity that the courts will adopt in the future, it is strongly recommended that the contracting parties place the issue above any doubt: where possible, make an explicit decision on the right to invoke the arbitration agreement as well as the main contract. In practice (as double and counter-intuitive as it may seem at first glance as a contract signing), this means two rule clauses: one for the main contract and the other in the arbitration or dispute settlement clause. Applying these principles in this case, the majority decided that the parties had not made the choice of law (either for the arbitration agreement or for the contract as a whole), but because they had chosen London as the seat of arbitration, the arbitration agreement was most closely linked to English law and therefore governed by English law. This was despite the obvious close link between the main construction contract and Russia. Therefore, the Russian judicial procedure is contrary to the arbitration agreement and it is legitimate that the Court of Appeal has issued a referral order in order to deter the applicant from pursuing this procedure. However, all the judges agreed that an injunction should be issued, not on the basis of the existing law of the arbitration agreement, but only on whether the continuation of the foreign proceeding constitutes a violation of that agreement: “The court will be to terminate the [conciliation] agreement of the parties…

and the will of the court to do so is itself an important reason for choosing an English arbitration seat. The complainant, Kabab-Ji S.A.L.