Lack of litigation on the validity of the arbitration agreement In 2009, Ukrnafta brought an action before the Stockholm District Court and argued, referring to Swedish law, that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. The proceedings were stayed until arbitration. In 2011, the District Court rejected Ukrnafta`s argument and confirmed that the court had jurisdiction. The Court reminded the parties that foreign judicial decisions on enforcement may give rise to a question of legal infringement, referring to Diag Human SE against the Czech Republic (discussed in one of our previous blog posts). However, since the Ukrainian courts have not considered the existence of an arbitration agreement under Swedish law, no dispute has been raised about effectiveness. The Court held that, to the extent that its findings concerned the validity of the JAA adde under Ukrainian law, it would be unfair to acknowledge a violation of the law preventing Carpatsky from successfully asserting the validity of the JAA addition. So far, Texas courts and the Fifth Circuit have only used the doctrine of direct waiver of advantage to impose arbitration by non-signatories who sued the signatories.18 However, a Court in South Texas recently ruled that the doctrine could be applied outside of this context.19 It remains to be seen whether other Texas courts will follow the Southern District`s lead. The High Court of England dismissed an application under section 103 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (“AA 1996”) to set aside an order for the enforcement of an ICC arbitral award in England.