The first circle includes those "parties whose interpretation of the arbitration agreement and the contractual relationship between the parties indicates that they have agreed to be part of the arbitration proceeding" or those whose consent is inferred "...From his participation in the proceeding as he was represented...";
The second circle includes the "substitutes", in accordance with the provision of section 4 of the Arbitration Law, which states that "an arbitration agreement and the authority of an arbitrator under which their power is also valid with respect to the substitutes of the parties to the agreement", which includes "...A person to whom the right (or liability) of the original owner of the right (or liability) has been transferred, by virtue of a law (such as: an estate administrator, heir, trustee in bankruptcy, etc.) or in other voluntary circumstances (such as receiving rights under a contract)."
and the third circle, which is said to be "the most far-reaching in terms of the basic principle of the parties' consent to arbitration" (paragraph 14 of the judgment), includes "...Those who are closely related to one of the parties who signed the arbitration agreement, but the principle of separate legal personality separates them" is the touchstone when it is requested to add to the arbitration proceeding the controlling shareholder of a company that has signed an arbitration agreement, or, in a mirror image, to add the company that is under the full control of the shareholder who signed the arbitration agreement.
- The Applicants claim that the three expansion circles apply together.
The rejection of the argument in relation to the first two circles is self-evident.
In order to enter the scope of the first circle, it is necessary to prove specific circumstances from which it is possible to conclude that personal liability can be inferred from the party that is sought to be joined, alongside the liability of the main contractor, or the intention to bind him as a party to the arbitration proceeding.