The claimant appealed an order staying its action on the basis that the agreement between the parties provided for arbitration in Sweden. Shares had been purchased, and the claimant said that because of misrepresentations by the respondent, they had paid six times the true value. There had been a Confidential Information Memorandum upon which both parties would wish to rely. The form applying for shares had been prepared by a placement agent and included an arbitration clause. The respondent argued that that contract was with the agents, not the respondent.
Held: The form created a contract between the parties. The additional question arose as to whether a claim for damages for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation fell within the ambit of the arbitration clause. An arbitration or jurisdiction clause is very different from a general release, and the BCCI case was distinguished. It would be unhelpful to allow two sets of proceedings, and nor had the respondent taken any step in the proceedings to waive the right to arbitration. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Schiemann, Lord Justice Clarke, And, Lady Justice Arden
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 135
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA v Ali, Khan and others (No 1); BCCI v Ali HL 1-Mar-2001
Cere Needed Releasing Future Claims
A compromise agreement which appeared to claim to settle all outstanding claims between the employee and employer, did not prevent the employee later claiming for stigma losses where, at the time of the agreement, the circumstances which might lead . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167624
