Unlike an arbitrator, it is not competent for him to do so (British Shipbuilders v VSEL Consortium plc  1 Lloyd`s Rep 106), unless the contract expressly provides that an expert may, for example, order a party to disclose relevant documents or issue a summons to testify requiring a witness to testify. As a result, the experts` finding is often less appropriate for cases where key factual issues are in dispute. The very title of the clause, i.e. “Arbitration Clause” or “Arbitration Clause”, is irrelevant. The courts are not bound by the text used by the parties and must analyze the nature of the mandate entrusted to the third party to determine the classification of the clause (Ct suprême français, 31 March 1862); Paris Ct App., 12 January 1979; Supreme Court of France, 2nd Civ., 7 November 1974; 1. Civ. div., 26 October 1976, Bull.B.I. 305). However, the Tribunal may take the text into consideration in determining the intention of the parties (Lyon Ct App., 12 October 1953; TGI Paris, 22 April 1985) and tend not to disqualify the clauses of the “arbitral tribunal”, but to qualify them as arbitration clauses bearing the title of expert disposition (J-Cl. Fasc., 1005 § 71, Rev.
arb. 1990.717; Paris Ct App., 24 October 1991, Joyaux v Gan). 3. These parties are attracted to English law, a London headquarters and the LCIA because of their common reputation for quality dispute resolution. This reputation is based in part on access to an unranced pool of experts….