5 There is no doubt that external trust disputes between trustees and third parties related to the agent can be resolved legally through arbitration, unless the trust deed reveals a contrary intent: cf. Trustee Act 1925, ss. 15 (f), 69 (2). This also applies to cases: in cases where beneficiaries sue “in place of the agent” (Hayim/Citibank N.A.  A.C. 730, 747) and the exercise of fiduciary rights in a Vandepitte proceeding (see Vandepitte Preferred Intrusance Corp. of New York  A.C 70; Roberts v Gill  UKSC 22;  1 A.C. 240), but it does not directly authorize the resolution of internal trust disputes: see Re Earl of Strafford  1 J.28, 32-33. Any beneficiary who seeks or accepts benefits, interest or rights under the trust is bound by the provisions of this compromise clause and is deemed accepted. The third difference and some improvement, it notes in the 2018 clause, is the explicit inclusion of confidentiality obligations for all arbitration proceedings rendered on the basis of the clause and all arbitration proceedings rendered by the arbitration tribunal or a settlement agreement between the parties. Given that one of the main reasons why the parties are considering arbitrating disputes in order to resolve trust disputes is the ability to keep matters confidential, it is certainly to be welcomed that they are included in the clause itself. Since the 1998 CCI rules did not contain provisions for junk and multi-party scenarios, the 2008 clause expressly contained such provisions, but as the new 2017 arbitration rules do, the 2018 clause repeals these provisions and instead relies on those provisions of the rules themselves. The Court is discussing several states that have adopted certain versions of the model law and other states that have addressed arbitration clauses in estate planning documents.
In doing so, the court found that there was a common issue between these states that “arbitration provisions in a trust agreement cannot compel the arbitrator to determine the validity of the trust.”  As a result, the Arkansas Court of Appeals upheld the Tribunal`s injunction to deny the directors` application for arbitration. 57 rue v Rigby (1802) 6 Ves. 815, 818 (31 E.R. 1323). See also Mitchell v Harris (1793) 2 Ves. 129, 137 (30 E.R. 557); Gourlay vs. Duke of Somerset (1815) 19 Ves. 429, 431 (34 E.R. 576); Agar vs. Macklew (1825) 2 Sim.
St. 418, 423 (57 E.R. 405); J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence, 13th ed., Vol. 2, by M. Bigelow (Boston 1886), 793-94; E.P. Hewitt and J.B. Richardson, White – Tudor`s Leading Cases in Equity, 9th ed. (London 1928), 394; G.