Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6 (2026)

] Validity of agreement to arbitrate

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

[§658A-6] Validity of agreement to arbitrate. (a) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable except upon a ground that exists at law or in equity for the revocation of a contract.

(b) The court shall decide whether an agreement to arbitrate exists or a controversy is subject to an agreement to arbitrate.

(c) An arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled and whether a contract containing a valid agreement to arbitrate is enforceable.

(d) If a party to a judicial proceeding challenges the existence of, or claims that a controversy is not subject to, an agreement to arbitrate, the arbitration proceeding may continue pending final resolution of the issue by the court, unless the court otherwise orders. [L 2001, c 265, pt of §1]

Case Notes

Circuit court erred in determining that petitioner's claim that the arbitration provision in question was unconscionable on several grounds were beyond the scope of its review in deciding on a motion to compel arbitration; unconscionability is a generally applicable contract defense and is within the scope of the circuit court's review on the question of whether a valid and enforceable agreement to arbitrate exists. 130 H. 437, 312 P.3d 869 (2013).

The circuit court should have granted the petitioner's motion to compel arbitration because there was an arbitration agreement between the parties that clearly and unmistakably left the issue of arbitrability to the arbitrator. 132 H. 426, 322 P.3d 966 (2014).

Where substantively unconscionable terms pervaded the arbitration agreement and, therefore, no part of the arbitration agreement could be spared and given effect, circuit court erred in declining to invalidate the entire arbitration agreement. 140 H. 325, 400 P.3d 526 (2017).

Cited: 297 F. Supp. 2d 1259 (2003).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: State v. Nakanelua, 323 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Nakanelua, 323 P.3d 136 (Haw. App. 2014). “In support of their contentions, both UPW and Employer cite to HRS § 658A-6 (Supp. 2013), which provides in relevant part: (a) An agreement contained in a record to submit to arbitration any existing or subsequent controversy arising between the parties to the agreement is…”

Kahuku Holdings, LLC (Del. Ch. 2014). · cites it 3× “‖24 That statutory provision, codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6, provides that arbitrability is to be determined by ―The court,‖ a term defined in the Hawaii Code as ―any district or circuit court of competent jurisdiction in the State [of Hawaii].”

Straub Jr v. The Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Wailea Ekahi (D. Haw. 2023). “” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6(a). If a party refuses to arbitrate, Section 658A-7(a) of the Hawaii Uniform Arbitration Act provides that upon a motion by a party, “the court shall proceed summarily to decide the issue and 8 order the parties to arbitrate unless it finds that there…”

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6(a) — 1 case

— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6(b) — 1 case

Kahuku Holdings, LLC (Del. Ch. 2014). “‖24 That statutory provision, codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 658A-6, provides that arbitrability is to be determined by ―The court,‖ a term defined in the Hawaii Code as ―any district or circuit court of competent jurisdiction in the State [of Hawaii].”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.