Second, there could be cases where the interests of the third party are so consistent with the interest of one of the original parties to the arbitration agreement that the interests of the third party are represented in the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. An unprecedented ad hoc award expressly granted the applicant`s request to join other defendants following the third party`s opposition, on the ground that he could not participate in the formation of the arbitral tribunal because the interests of the additional parties were so closely linked to the interests of the defendant.18 The ICC Rules, B. having their seat in English). It also contained exclusion and indemnification clauses expressly established in favour of the managers against certain shareholder claims. Fortress` proceedings against the other partners were stayed under the s9 Arbitration Act 1996 due to the arbitration agreement in the contract. The crucial question before the Court of Appeal was whether the leaders were also entitled to a stay of English legal proceedings against them in favour of arbitration. The executives attempted to invoke the arbitration agreement in the contract and, ultimately, the contractual exclusion in the contract as a defense against Fortress` claim. Fifth, it could theoretically be argued that the denial of membership under the right of third parties to appoint the arbitral tribunal is based on the belief that a party can only obtain fair and equitable results from the arbitrator it has appointed.27 If this argument is considered true, it runs completely counter to the idea that arbitration is a neutral dispute settlement mechanism.28 29 If we consider that the arbitrators are neutral, the fact that a third party did not have the opportunity to participate in the formation of the arbitral tribunal should not undermine the principle of equality between the parties. If we believe that the arbitrators are neutral, the fact that a third party did not have the opportunity to participate in the formation of the arbitral tribunal should not affect the principle of equality between the parties. The French judge then assessed KFG`s role in the FDA`s execution and concluded that.“ the arbitral tribunal found, correctly and without the need to rule on the transfer of the arbitration clause from the AHFC to KFG, that that clause had been extended to KFG`s commitment. [paragraph 47] Furthermore, it found that the choice of English law as lex contractus was not sufficient to „establish the common will of the parties to subject the arbitration clauses to English law“ and to depart from the substantive rules of international arbitration applicable to the seat of arbitration [para. .