Category: Arbitration

Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Association Company Ltd: CA 2 Dec 2004

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke The Lord Chief Justice Of England &Amp; Wales Lord Justice Rix

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1598, [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 67

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Regulation 44/2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd ComC 18-Dec-2003
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd ComC 21-Mar-2005
Application for court to nominate arbitrator. . .
Cited – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and Another (‘The Front Comor’) ComC 21-Mar-2005
Appeal against anti-suit order. The court ordered that since the question of whether an anti-suit injunction could be made to restrain proceedings abroad had been decided in Through Transport, that issue could go straight to the House of Lords. . .
Cited – West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa and others (The Front Comor) HL 21-Feb-2007
A ship had foundered, and the owners disputed their insurance claim. The policy provided for arbitration in London, and one party sought an order to prevent the other commencing proceedings in another EU state in breach of the arbitration agreement. . .
Cited – Soleymani v Nifty Gateway Llc ComC 24-Mar-2022
Arbitration jurisdiction applications stayed
The claimant sought declaratory relief as to the basis of a purchase after he placed a bid for a blockchain-based non-fungible token (also known as an NFT) associated with an artwork by the artist known as Beeple titled ‘Abundance’. The court was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Jurisdiction

Updated: 03 April 2022; Ref: scu.219897

Alfamicro v Commission (Research and Technological Development): ECFI 14 Nov 2017

ECJ Judgment – Arbitration clause – Grant agreement concluded under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Program (CIP) (2007-2013) – Audit report – Eligible costs – Repayment of amounts paid – Proportionality – Legitimate expectations – Security legal basis – Principle of good administration – Obligation to state reasons – Adaptation of findings in the course of proceedings – Compensation of claims – Counterclaim – Default interest

Citations:

T-831/14, [2017] EUECJ T-831/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Arbitration

Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.599665

Jacobs UK Ltd v Skanska Construction UK Ltd: TCC 29 Sep 2017

Application by Jacobs against Skanska for an injunction to restrain Skanska from proceeding with an adjudication, following Skanska’s withdrawal from an earlier adjudication in respect of the dispute between the parties.

Judges:

O’Farrell DBE J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2395 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595940

Bernard Sport Surfaces Ltd v Astrosoccer4U Ltd: TCC 8 Sep 2017

Application to enforce arbitration award, and application by Bernhards to be allowed to continue with the enforcement proceedings as a result of the notice of intention to appoint and administrator which was served after close of business

Judges:

Coulson J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 2425 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.595938

Seatrade Group Nv v Hakan Agro Dmcc, Re The Aconcagua Bay: ComC 26 Mar 2018

The court was asked in the context of an arbitration awrd, whether the warranty in a voyage charterparty that a berth is ‘always accessible’ means that the vessel is always able not only to enter but also to leave the berth.

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 654 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.606869

JFS (UK) Limited v South West Water Services Limited: TCC 22 Apr 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Technology 327

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – JFS (UK) Limited, Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf TCC 3-Mar-1998
This was an application by the defendant to amend its defence and to add a counterclaim. In considering the application, it had to be decided whether the defendant had already served a counterclaim since, if it had not, it was entitled to add the . .
Appealed to – JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf CA 18-Sep-1998
A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a ‘claim’ under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 . .

Cited by:

See Also – JFS (UK) Limited, Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf TCC 3-Mar-1998
This was an application by the defendant to amend its defence and to add a counterclaim. In considering the application, it had to be decided whether the defendant had already served a counterclaim since, if it had not, it was entitled to add the . .
App4eal from – JFS (UK) Limited Tilghman Wheelabrator Limited v Dwr Cymru Cyf CA 18-Sep-1998
A positive averment by defendant short of a claim for relief did not constitute a ‘claim’ under the section, and the judge had jurisdiction to allow a later amendment claiming relief as an original counterclaim. It was not barred either under RSC 20 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration

Updated: 25 March 2022; Ref: scu.135895

Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd: ComC 11 Apr 2017

Two applications by the claimant, which by these proceedings seeks to enforce under the New York Convention and s.101 of the Arbitration Act 1996 an arbitration award dated 14 November 2014 in an ICC arbitration seated in Paris.

Judges:

Andrew Baker J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 797 (Comm), [2017] WLR(D) 267

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, International

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581957

P v Q and Others: ComC 3 Feb 2017

Application by the Claimant for disclosure of documents in support of the Claimant’s application to remove the Second and Third Defendants as arbitrators for misconduct

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 148 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – P v Q and Others ComC 9-Feb-2017
Application by the Claimant to remove the Second and Third Defendants as arbitrators for failing properly to conduct proceedings . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Arbitration

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581363

P v Q and Others: ComC 9 Feb 2017

Application by the Claimant to remove the Second and Third Defendants as arbitrators for failing properly to conduct proceedings

Judges:

Popplewell J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 194 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – P v Q and Others ComC 3-Feb-2017
Application by the Claimant for disclosure of documents in support of the Claimant’s application to remove the Second and Third Defendants as arbitrators for misconduct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.581364

Symbion Power Llc v Venco Imtiaz Construction Company: TCC 10 Mar 2017

Application under s. 68(2)(d) of the Arbitration Act 1996 in which the Claimant alleges serious irregularity in the Award of an arbitral tribunal because the tribunal failed to deal with all the issues that were put it.

Judges:

Jefford J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 348 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.580907

Fox v Wellfair Ltd: CA 1981

An expert arbitrator should not in effect give evidence to himself without disclosing the evidence on which he relies to the parties, or if only one to that party. He should not act on his private opinion without disclosing it. It is undoubtedly true that an expert arbitrator can use his own expert knowledge. But a distinction is made in the cases between general expert knowledge and knowledge of special facts relevant to the particular case. The arbitrator’s function is not to supply evidence for the parties but to adjudicate upon the evidence given before him. He can and should use his special knowledge so as to understand the evidence that is given – the letters that have passed – the usage of the trade – the dealings in the market – and to appreciate the worth of all that he sees upon a view. But he cannot use his special knowledge – or at any rate he should not use it – so as to provide evidence on behalf of the defendants which they have not chosen to provide for themselves. For then he would be discarding the role of an impartial arbitrator and assuming the role of advocate for the defaulting side. At any rate he should not use his own knowledge to derogate from the evidence of the plaintiffs’ experts – without putting his own knowledge to them and giving them a chance of answering it and showing that his view is wrong.
Dunn LJ: ‘If the expert arbitrator, as he may be entitled to do, forms a view of the facts different from that given in the evidence which might produce a contrary result to that which emerges from the evidence, then he should bring that view to the attention of the parties. This is especially so where there is only one party and the arbitrator is in effect putting the alternative case for the party not present at the arbitration.
Similarly if an arbitrator as a result of a view of the premises reaches a conclusion contrary to or inconsistent with the evidence given at the hearing, then before incorporating that conclusion in his award he should bring it to the attention of the parties so that they may have an opportunity of dealing with it.’

Judges:

Lord Denning MR, Dunn LJ

Citations:

[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 514

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Checkpoint Ltd v Strathclyde Pension Fund CA 6-Feb-2003
The tenants sought to challenge the arbitrator’s award setting the rent payable under the lease. They claimed that he had improperly refered to his own experience of the market, to support his decision, and this committed a serious irregularity . .
Cited – Carillion Construction Ltd v Devonport Royal Dockyard Ltd CA 16-Nov-2005
The parties had disputed payments for subcontracting work on a major project. The matter had been referred to arbitration, and the claimants now appealed refusal of leave to appeal the adjudicator’s award.
Held: The dispute was complex and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.179793

Jones v Sherwood Computer Services Limited plc: CA 1992

A contract provided for the sale and purchase of shares. In the absence of agreement a third party firm of accountants would act as valuer as an expert, and his decision was to be final and binding on the parties. One party now appealed a decision not to strike out a claim which sought to go behind the valuation.
Held: The agreement was clear, and there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of the valuer, or that he had departed from his instructions. The parties had agreed to be bound by his decision whether given with or without reasons. His decision was binding. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[1992] 1 WLR 277, [1992] 2 All ER 170

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Veba Oil Supply and Trading Gmbh v Petrotrade Inc CA 6-Dec-2001
A dispute between parties to a contract was to be determined by an independent expert. It was claimed that his report was not binding on the parties, since he had departed from his instructions in a material way. In this context, what constituted a . .
Cited – Morgan Sindall Plc v Sawston Farms (Cambs) Ltd CA 3-Dec-1998
An option had been given for the purchase of land. The claimant challenged the value assigned on exercising the option. The landowner subsequently disclosed a right of way over the land.
Held: An expert’s valuation cannot be challenged if it . .
Cited – AIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (‘the Kriti Palm’) CA 28-Nov-2006
The defendant appealed a finding of deceit. Having issued its certificate as to the quality of a cargo of gasoline, it then failed to disclose to the party who had paid it to produce the certificate, information it had which cast doubt on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Company, Arbitration

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.182855

Scherer v Counting Instruments Ltd (Note): 1986

Section 18(1)(f) which provides that no appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal without the leave of the lower court ‘relating only to costs which by law are left to the discretion’ of the lower court, has no application if the appeal court is able to say that the judge in the lower court did not really exercise his discretion at all or based his discretion upon an inadmissible reason.

Citations:

[1986] 1 WLR 615

Statutes:

Supreme Courts Act 1981 18(1)(f)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Not applied – Aden Refinery Co Ltd v Ugland Management Co Ltd CA 1986
A dispute under a charterparty was referred to arbitration.
Held: The charterers were refused leave to appeal to the court under section 1(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1979. They were also refused leave to appeal to the court under section . .
Cited – Cetelem Sa v Roust Holdings Ltd CA 24-May-2005
The parties were engaged in arbitration proceedings. The claimant had sought and obtained an interim mandatory order intended to prevent the defendant dissipating its assets in anticipation of an adverse ruling. The defendant sought leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.226188

Siskina (owners of Cargo lately on Board) v Distos Compania Naviera SA: HL 1979

An injunction was sought against a Panamanian ship-owning company to restrain it from disposing of a fund, consisting of insurance proceeds, in England. The claimant for the injunction was suing the company in a Cyprus court for damages and believed the company to have no other assets from which to meet the hoped-for damages award than the fund in England. No proprietary claim was, or could have been, made by the claimant to the fund.
Held: The Court could not grant interlocutory relief when the substantive proceedings were taking place abroad. English courts had no jurisdiction to grant a freezing injunction in a case in which there was no claim for substantive relief before the English courts.
Lord Diplock said: ‘A right to obtain an interlocutory judgment is not a cause of action. It cannot stand on its own. It is dependent upon there being a pre-existing cause of action against the defendant arising out of an invasion, actual or threatened by him, of a legal or equitable right of the plaintiff for the enforcement of which the defendant is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. The right to obtain an interlocutory injunction is merely ancillary and incidental to the pre-existing cause of action. It is granted to preserve the status quo pending the ascertainment of the court of the rights of the parties and the grant to the plaintiff of the relief to which his cause of action entitles him, which may or may not include a final injunction.’ and ”To come within the sub-rule the injunction sought in the action must be part of the substantive relief to which the plaintiff’s cause of action entitles him; and the thing that it is sought to restrain the foreign defendant from doing in England must amount to an invasion of some legal or equitable right belonging to the plaintiff in this country and enforceable here by a final judgment for an injunction.’ and
‘The general rule is that the jurisdiction of the English Court over persons is territorial. It is restricted to those upon whom its process can be served within the territorial limits of England and Wales. To this general rule there are some exceptions. These are now to be found in Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court which have statutory force by nature of section 99 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925. Order 11 permits the High Court to grant leave to a plaintiff to serve its process upon a person outside the territorial limits of England and Wales in those cases, but only in those cases, that are specified in sub-rules (a) to (o) of rule 1(1) or in rule 2 . .
In several of the cases specified in sub-rules (a) to (o) the jurisdiction exercisable over foreigners by the High Court is wider than that which is recognized in English law as being possessed by courts of foreign countries. These are ‘exorbitant’ jurisdictions which run counter to the normal rules of comity among civilized nations. For this reason it has long been held that where there is any room for doubt as to their meaning the provisions of the sub-rules are to be strictly construed in favour of the foreigners : The Hagen [1908] P.189, 201 per Farwell L.J. and it is in my view equally well settled now that it is not permissible in any action commenced by service of process on a person out of the jurisdiction to litigate any claim that does not fall within one or other of sub-rules (a) to (o).’
The purpose of a freezing order is ‘ . . to ensure that there will be a fund available within the jurisdiction to meet any judgment obtained by a Plaintiff in the High Court against a Defendant who does not reside within the jurisdiction and has no place of business here.’
As to the 1925 Act: ‘That sub-section, speaking as it does of interlocutory orders, presupposes the existence of an action, actual or potential, claiming substantive relief which the High Court has jurisdiction to grant and to which the interlocutory orders referred to are but ancillary. This factor has been present in all previous cases in which Mareva injunctions have been granted . . . it is not present in this.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock

Citations:

[1979] AC 210, [1979] 3 WLR 818, [1979] 3 All ER 803

Statutes:

Rules of the Supreme Court Order 11 Rule 1, Judicature Act 1925 45(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mercantile Group (Europe) Ag v Aiyela and Others CA 4-Aug-1993
Interlocutory injunctions including Mareva procedures and orders are available to support the enforcement of a judgment. The purpose of such a jurisdiction is so that the court can ‘ensure the effective enforcement of its orders’. A court may still . .
Cited – Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasiliero Sa Petrobras and Another ComC 16-Jun-2006
. .
Cited – C Inc Plc v L and Another QBD 4-May-2001
The plaintiff had obtained judgment against L, only then to find that she claimed that all only apparent assets were held by her on trust for or as agent for her husband who was overseas. The plaintiff therefore now set out to add him, and to claim . .
Cited – North London Railway Co v The Great Northern Railway Co CA 9-Jun-1883
The Judicature Act, 1873, s. 25, sub-S. 8, has given no power to the High Court to issue an injunction in a case in which no Court before that Act had power to give any remedy whatever.
Therefore the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue an . .

Cited by:

Cited – Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd and Others HL 17-Feb-1993
The court has the power to stay an action which pursued a remedy which was outside the terms of the arbitration agreement determining the dispute. The contract between the parties provided for disputes to be settled by arbitration in Belgium. The . .
Cited – South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij de Zeven Provincien NV HL 1987
There can be little basis for the grant of relief to a landowner providing protection from an action in nuisance if the landowner will not himself remedy the public nuisance. The House considered whether the circumstances gave the court power to . .
Cited – Fourie v Le Roux and Others ChD 30-Sep-2004
Interim asset freezing injunctions had been obtained on the application of a liquidator in South Africa. The defendant applied for their discharge.
Held: They should be discharged. No foreign proceedings had been specified for which they were . .
Cited – Marketmaker Beijing Co Ltd and others v CMC Group Plc and others QBD 8-Oct-2004
Interim injunctions had been obtained to prevent the defendants carrying out certain banking transactions.
Held: The remedy sought and the claim was extravagant and unlikely to succeed. The injunctions should be discharged. It was not at all . .
Cited – Schmidt v Wong CA 7-Dec-2005
The claimant began a personal injury claim against her landlord. She wanted a freezing order, but began her claim in the County court. When she became aware that the county court had no jurisdiction to grant such an order, he sought to have the . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Egleton and others ChD 19-Sep-2006
The claimants had applied for the winding up of a company for very substantial sums of VAT due to it. Anticipating that hearing, it now sought restraining orders against the director defendants, alleging that there had been a carousel or missing . .
Affirmed – Fourie v Le Roux and others HL 24-Jan-2007
The appellant, liquidator of two South African companies, had made a successful without notice application for an asset freezing order. He believed that the defendants had stripped the companies of substantial assets. The order was set aside for . .
Cited – Franses v Al Assad and others ChD 26-Oct-2007
The claimant had obtained a freezing order over the proceeds of sale of a property held by solicitors. The claimant was liquidator of a company, and an allegation of wrongful trading had been made against the sole director and defendant. The . .
Cited – Republic of Haiti v Duvalier CA 1989
The defendant had fled from Haiti with a large part of that country’s assets while in power. Proceedings were pending in France which gave no jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing or disclosure order. He had used a firm of English solicitors as . .
Cited – JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov SC 21-Oct-2015
The court was asked as to the interpretation and application of the standard form freezing order. In the course of long-running litigation between JSC BTA Bank and Mr Ablyazov the Bank had obtained a number of judgments against the respondent . .
Not Followed – Mercedes Benz Ag v Leiduck PC 24-Jul-1995
Mareva relief is not available against a foreigner outside the UK in order to support a court action abroad. A Mareva injunction is not itself a substantive relief and so was not available to support foreign proceedings. A freezing order has to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.184335

Cetelem Sa v Roust Holdings Ltd: CA 24 May 2005

The parties were engaged in arbitration proceedings. The claimant had sought and obtained an interim mandatory order intended to prevent the defendant dissipating its assets in anticipation of an adverse ruling. The defendant sought leave to appeal.
Held: The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal itself. Section 44 gave the court the power to make such an order where it was necessary to preserve either evidence or assets. A decision of a judge which the court had no jurisdiction to make is not a decision ‘under the section’ within the meaning of section 44(7) of the 1996 Act. On the true construction of section 44(3) of the 1996 Act, if the case is one of urgency the court only has jurisdiction to make such orders as it thinks necessary for the purpose of preserving evidence or assets, but the judge had here purported to make an order under section 44(3) on a wider basis and thus had no jurisdiction to make it on that wider basis. Wherever leave is required from the ‘court’, the ‘court’ is the court of first instance.

Judges:

The Vice Chancellor Lord Justice Clarke and Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 618, Times 13-Jun-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 3555

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 44 44(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Scherer v Counting Instruments Ltd (Note) 1986
Section 18(1)(f) which provides that no appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal without the leave of the lower court ‘relating only to costs which by law are left to the discretion’ of the lower court, has no application if the appeal court is able . .
Cited – Aden Refinery Co Ltd v Ugland Management Co Ltd CA 1986
A dispute under a charterparty was referred to arbitration.
Held: The charterers were refused leave to appeal to the court under section 1(3)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1979. They were also refused leave to appeal to the court under section . .
Cited – Hiscox Underwriting Limited v Dixon 2004
Arbitration proceedings had been commenced betweeen the parties, and an order was sought under s244.
Held: Without such an order the insurers could suffer substantial losses before the arbitrator could itself make the necessary orders. The . .
Cited – Virdee v Virdi CA 2003
. .
Cited – Henry Boot Construction (UK) Limited v Malmaison Hotel (Manchester) Limited CA 25-May-2000
Where a party appealed against an arbitration to the County or High Court, the court which gave judgment was the sole body able to give permission to enter an appeal under the Act. An appellate court did not have jurisdiction to give leave to . .
Mentioned – Harbour General Works Ltd v Environment Agency 2000
. .
Mentioned – Collins (Contractors) Ltd v Baltic Quay Management (1994) Ltd CA 7-Dec-2004
The claimant sought payment under its invoice for construction works. The contractor gave notice of its intention to withhold payment, and then also sought to refer the matter to arbitration. The claimant said that the notice had prevented the . .
Mentioned – Warborough Investments Ltd v S Robinson and Sons (Holdings) Ltd CA 10-Jun-2003
The applicant sought remission of the decision of the arbitrator on a rent review. The arbitrator had taken a different approach from that suggested by either party’s expert.
Held: Arbitrators should be give a wide margin of appreciation. Even . .
Cited – Virdee v Virdi CA 2003
. .
Cited – Athletic Union of Constantinople v National Basketball Association and Others CA 28-May-2002
A party had been refused leave to appeal against an arbitration under the Act by the judge, but later obtained leave to appeal.
Held: Such leave could only be granted by the trial judge, and the Court of Appeal could set aside the leave . .
Mentioned – Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Ltd, The Halki QBD 16-Jul-1997
The rule that an arbitrator decided all matters arising from a contract was not changed by the change in wording in the new Act. Provisions in new Arbitration Act severely limit choice of alternative forum where arbitration clause in place. . .
Cited – Johnston v W H Brown Construction (Dundee) Ltd IHCS 7-Jun-2000
The cost of employing an architect to draw up a schedule of defects under a building contract was not recoverable as damages. The rights under this contract required remediation of the defects discovered and listed, and did not envisage other . .
Cited – Hussmann (Europe) Ltd. v Al Ameen Development and Trade Company and others ComC 19-Apr-2000
. .
Mentioned – ABB Lummus Global Ltd v Keppel Fels Ltd 1999
. .
Cited – Azov Shipping Company v Baltic Shipping Co. (No. 2) ComC 12-Jan-1999
ComC Security for costs. . .
Mentioned – Federal Insurance Company and Another v Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Co ComC 22-Jun-1999
ComC For the purposes of filing a vacancy where an arbitrator has ceased to hold office, pursuant to sections 27(3) and 16 of the Arbitration Act 1996: the arbitration clauses agreed procedure for appointment of . .
Mentioned – Azov Shipping Company v Baltic Shipping Co. (No. 2) ComC 12-Jan-1999
ComC Security for costs. . .
Mentioned – Laker Airways Inc v FLS Aerospace Ltd and Another ComC 21-May-1999
A barrister, appointed to act in an arbitration, was not to be prevented from acting, because another barrister in the same set acted for one of the parties. The conditions for removal of an arbitrator was as to the objective presence of bias. . .
Cited – The National Insurance and Guarantee Corporation Ltd v M Young Legal Services Ltd 2004
In an urgent case, the court can make an order under section 44(3) notwithstanding that it involved making at least some determination of the rights of the parties under a contract in which the parties had agreed that the determination of their . .
Appeal from – Cetelem Sa v Roust Holdings Ltd QBD 29-Dec-2004
Choses in action including contractual rights are ‘assets’ within the meaning of section 44(3). . .

Cited by:

Cited – ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England CA 16-Oct-2006
The court at first instance had dismissed the ship-owner’s application to set aside the arbitration award, and then refused leave to appeal. The court of appeal had to consider whether it had jurisdiction itself to hear an application for leave.
Cited – Sumukan Ltd v The Commonwealth Secretariat CA 21-Mar-2007
The appellants sought to challenge a finding that they had by their contract with the defendants excluded the right to appeal to a court on a point of law. The defendants replied that the appeal court had no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal.
Cited – Delta Reclamation Ltd v Premier Waste Management Ltd QBD 24-Oct-2008
The claimant sought a stay of the matter and a consolidated arbitration. The defendant said that the litigation having been started by the claimant it was too late to refer the issues to arbitration.
Held: Correspondence between the parties . .
Cited – UST-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Jsc v AES UST-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant Llp SC 12-Jun-2013
Arrangements between the parties owners and operators of a power plant in Kazakhstan required disputes to be arbitrated in London under ICC Rules. That clause was governed by English law, and the remainder by Kazakh law. A ruling by the Supreme . .
Cited – Sankofa and Another v The Football Association Ltd ComC 12-Jan-2007
The claimant sought an injunction to order the defendant football association from preventing him playing on a football match. He had been sent off and was subject to an automatic additional one match ban. He sought to exercise a right under the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 25 February 2022; Ref: scu.225227

Universiteit Antwerpen v Rea: ECFI 1 Mar 2017

ECJ Arbitration clause – Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Marie Curie actions – Early-stage researchers – Call for proposals FP7-People-ITN-2008 – Grant agreements – Eligible costs – Recovery of sums paid – Concept of hosting researchers – Proportionality

Citations:

T-208/15, [2017] EUECJ T-208/15, ECLI:EU:T:2017:136

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Arbitration

Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.579688

Hounslow London Borough Council v Twickenham Gardens Development Limited: 1971

The defendant, a building contractor, had been allowed into occupation of a site owned by the plaintiff council under a building contract. The council had sought to determine the contract by notice under its terms. The contractor refused to vacate the site. The council brought proceedings for injunctions restraining the contractor from ‘entering, remaining or otherwise trespassing’ on the site.
Held: The court rejected a submission that a certifying architect was obliged to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He was obliged to retain his independence in exercising his judgment, but, unless the contract so provides, he need not go further and observe rules of natural justice. For the rules of natural justice to apply, there must be something in the nature of a judicial situation, and this was not the case with the architect. The court considered whether a licensee who is in actual occupation may have the protection of the law of trespass against intruders. Megarry J: ‘in recent years it has been established that a person who has no more than a licence may yet have possession of the land.’ and ‘The contractor is in de facto control of the site, and whether or not that control amounts in law to possession, the injunction would in effect expel the contractor from the site and enable the borough to re-assert its rights of ownership. ‘ The court considered a submission that the contractor was in possession of the site – in which case the injunctions sought would, clearly, have been inappropriate: ‘I do not think that I have to decide these or a number of other matters relating to possession. First, I am not at all sure that the matter is determined by the language of the contract. It is in a standard form [containing R.I.B.A. conditions], and may be used in a wide variety of circumstances. In some the building owner may be in manifest possession of the site, and may remain so, despite the building operations. In others, the building owner may de facto, at all events, exercise no rights of possession or control, but leave the contractor in sole and undisputed control of the site. Second, in recent years it has become established that a person who has no more than a licence may yet have possession of the land. Though one of the badges of a tenancy or other interest in land, possession is not necessarily denied to a licensee.’

Judges:

Megarry J

Citations:

[1971] 1 Ch 233, [1970] 3 WLR 538, [1970] 3 All ER 326

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Panamena Europea Navigacion v Frederick Leyland and Co HL 1947
The parties had entered into an agreement providing for arbitration of any disputes. Lord Thankerton said: ‘By entering into the contract the respondents agreed that the appellant’s surveyor should discharge both these duties and therefore they . .

Cited by:

Cited – Amec Civil Engineering Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport CA 17-Mar-2005
The contractors appealed a decision that an arbitrator had jurisdiction to hear a claim against them in respect of works carried out on the Thelwall viaduct. The contractors denied that there had been a dispute which could found a reference, and no . .
Cited – Manchester Airport Plc v Dutton and others CA 23-Feb-1999
The claimant sought an order requiring delivery of possession of land occupied by the respondent objectors. They needed to remove trees from the land in order to construct a runway on their own adjacent land. The claimant had been granted a licence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Construction, Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.224304

Scottish Equitable Plc v Miller Construction Ltd: IHCS 31 Aug 2001

The parties entered into a contract for the demolition and building of offices. They sought to refer differences to arbitration. The issue as to whether the long or short prescription period operated so as to time bar some parts of the claim.
Held: Time began to run only from the time of the issue of the final certificate, and accordingly claims which might have been asserted at earlier times in the execution of the contract were not time barred.

Judges:

Lord Prosser, Lord Milligan, Lord Kingarth

Citations:

[2001] ScotCS 214, [2001] ScotHC 96

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1972 3, Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 6, Sch 1, Scottish Building Contract (with Quantities) January 1988

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Construction, Limitation, Arbitration

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.166511

Lifestyle Equities Cv and Another v Hornby Street (MCR) Ltd and Others: CA 26 Jan 2022

Appeal against a decision staying the Appellants’ claim against the Respondents for trade mark infringement and passing off pursuant to the power contained in Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The appeal raises a number of issues of conflict of laws in relation to arbitration agreements and the assignment of trade marks.

Judges:

Lord Justice Lewison

Lady Justice Macur
And

Lord Justice Snowden

Citations:

[2022] EWCA Civ 51

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Arbitration Act 1996 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration, Intellectual Property

Updated: 05 February 2022; Ref: scu.671672

Flashbird Ltd v Compagnie De Securite Privee Et Industrielle Sarl: PC 13 Dec 2021

(Mauritius) This is an appeal as of right from the decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius to dismiss the application of the appellant, Flashbird Ltd, to set aside an arbitration award under section 39(2)(a)(iv) of the International Arbitration Act 2008

Judges:

Lord Briggs
Lady Arden
Lord Hamblen
Lord Leggatt
Lady Rose

Citations:

[2021] UKPC 32, [2022] WLR(D) 36

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Arbitration

Updated: 01 February 2022; Ref: scu.671716

Black v John Williams and Co: HL 26 Nov 1923

A plasterer undertook to do the rough casting at certain premises for a certain price. On the completion of the work his employer expressed his dissatisfaction with it, and a submission was made to a master plasterer as arbiter to determine whether the work had been satisfactorily done, and particularly whether it had been executed in a manner recognised by and in accordance with the custom of trade, not only as regards material but also as regards quantities, quality, and solidity of the work done. The arbiter in order to ascertain whether the employer had authorised the use of certain materials questioned two of the contractor’s employees out with the contractor’s presence but in the presence of the employer. He then examined the employer’s manager out with the presence of both parties. In his award the arbiter while finding in favour of the contractor as to whether the employer had authorised the use of the materials in question, held that the work had not been properly executed. The contractor thereupon brought an action for the reduction of the award on the ground, inter alia, that the evidence in the arbitration proceedings had been taken in the presence of the defenders only and out with the presence of the pursuers. An additional objection, which, however, in the opinion of the Lord Ordinary was not very clearly if at all raised on record, was also argued, viz., that the arbiter had misconstrued the terms of the submission, inasmuch as he had not applied his mind to the question, ‘What is the custom of the trade as to the number of coats to be given when there is no specification in the offer?’ The Lord Ordinary’s decision reducing the award on this ground having been reversed by the First Division and the defenders assoilzied, the pursuers appealed. Held (1) that in taking the steps he did to ascertain what was the custom of trade the arbiter had not acted extra fines compromissi or failed to apply his mind to the true question submitted to him, and (2) that as regards the other ground of challenge, viz., that a witness had been examined out with the presence of one of the parties, the procedure followed had not in this instance violated the principles of justice, especially where, as here, the arbiter had decided in favour of the party challenging the award, and appeal dismissed.
Where a pursuer elicits from a defender in the course of his evidence something which suggests a new cause of action altogether or a different foundation for his action, he should only be allowed to proceed upon averments and pleas properly inserted in the record, and upon payment of the expenses incurred up to that point.

Judges:

Lord Dunedin, Lord Atkinson, Lord Shaw, Lord Phillimore, and Lord Blanesburgh

Citations:

[1923] UKHL 26, 61 SLR 26

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Arbitration

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.633268

IMT Shipping and Chartering Gmbh v Chansung Shipping Company Ltd, Owners Of the ‘Zenovia’: ComC 8 Apr 2009

The court considered the status and effect of a notice of approximate redelivery date and intended port given by a time charterer to an owner pursuant to the requirements of a time charter in amended New York Produce Exchange Form. In essence, the question raised is whether the charterers may subsequent to the giving of such notice revise their plans, consistent nonetheless with redelivery of the vessel within the contractually agreed period. In reality, the question is which of the charterers and the owners may here take advantage of an unexpected opportunity to fix the vessel in a rising market.

Judges:

Tomlinson J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 739 (Comm)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Transport, Arbitration

Updated: 31 January 2022; Ref: scu.331163

Synergy Hellas v Commission: ECJ 26 Jan 2017

(Order) Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Arbitration) – Arbitration clause – Contract ‘Multi-level patient-specific artery and artherogenesis model for outcome prediction, decision support and virtual hand-on training (ARTreat) Framework for the Seventh Framework Program for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013) – Termination of this contract due to irregularities in the execution of another contract with the European Commission – Good Faith – Legitimate expectation of non-termination

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2017:57, [2017] EUECJ C-45/16 – CO

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Arbitration

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573892

Anko v Commission T-771/14: ECFI 25 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Arbitration clause – Grant agreement concluded under the Sixth Framework Program for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2002-2006) – Doc@Hand Project – Eligible costs – Counterclaim – Reimbursement of amounts paid – Default interes

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:27, [2017] EUECJ T-771/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Arbitration

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573732

Anko v Commission T-768/14: ECFI 25 Jan 2017

ECJ (Judgment) Arbitration clause – Grant agreement concluded within the framework of the Seventh Framework Program for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration Activities (2007-2013) – Pocemon Project – Eligible costs – Counterclaim? Repayment of amounts paid – Interest on arrears

Citations:

ECLI:EU:T:2017:28, [2017] EUECJ T-768/14

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Arbitration

Updated: 29 January 2022; Ref: scu.573731

Profilati Italia SRL and Painewebber Inc v Painewebber International Futures Ltd: ComC 23 Jan 2001

An award was challenged on the grounds that the successful party had failed to make proper disclosure.
Held: Moore-Bick J applied the test whether there was ‘any substantial likelihood that disclosure . . would have resulted in the tribunal reaching a different conclusion’

Judges:

Moore-Bick J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Commercial 24, [2001] 1 All ER 1065

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – CMS Dolphin Ltd v Paul M Simonet and Another ChD 23-May-2001
The claimant asserted that the defendant had, having at one point been a creative director of the claimant, left to set up an alternate competing business, and diverted business from the first company to the new one. There had been disagreements . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 28 January 2022; Ref: scu.573284

GPF Gp Sarl v The Republic of Poland: ComC 2 Mar 2018

Brian J
[2018] EWHC 409 (Comm), [2018] WLR(D) 137
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
Princial judgment – GPF GP SARl v The Republic of Poland (601) ComC 2-Mar-2018
Request for leave to appeal from successful arbitral jurisdiction challenge . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Arbitration

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.606423

Yegiazaryan v Smagin: CA 19 Dec 2016

Appeal against order rejecting challenge to arbitration award.
Held: The particular clause at issue was not in fact entirely clear, but the judge having heard the evidence had been entitled to conclude as he did that the clause amounted to an agreement to arbitrate.

Lord Dyson MR, Elias, Beatson LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1290
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – A v B ComC 9-Jul-2015
Challenge to arbitration award – made without jurisdiction.
Held: Rejected. Mr. A signed the 2008 Agreement. Article 2.10 of that agreement contained an arbitration clause which bound Mr. A and conferred jurisdiction on the LCIA tribunal. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572425

Transgrain Shipping (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Yangtze Navigation (Hong Kong) Co Ltd and Another: ComC 7 Dec 2016

Appeal from an arbitration award concerning the true construction of clause 8(d) of the Inter-Club Agreement 1996 (‘the ICA’). Specifically, the issue is whether the term ‘act’ in the phrase ‘act or neglect’ means a culpable act in the sense of fault or whether it means any act, whether culpable or not.

[2016] EWHC 3132 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Arbitration

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572298

Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners: ComC 24 Nov 2016

Application for an anti-suit injunction against the defendant to restrain it from taking any further steps in ongoing proceedings in New South Wales and from commencing or pursuing any other substantive claims against the claimant on the ground that such proceedings are in breach of arbitration agreement(s) to which the claimant is a party.

O’Farrell J
[2016] EWHC 3010 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd CA 12-Mar-2008
The court considered the implication of the obligation of confidentiality in banking contracts or in arbitration agreements. It is ‘really a rule of substantive law masquerading as an implied term’. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 6-Nov-2008
Challenge to jurisdiction of arbitration proceedings. . .
See Also – Emmott v Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd ComC 12-Jan-2009
The claimant, a party to an arbitration, sought first an order requiring the defendant to comply with an order made by the arbitrator for the transfer of certain shares, and second an asset freezing order.
Held: The conditions for a peremptory . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott ComC 8-Jun-2011
The claimant challenged an arbitration award made concerning the agreement under which the defendant had been admitted to partnership. MWP contended that the Tribunal were guilty of a large number of serious irregularities in their conduct of the . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others ComC 21-Sep-2012
The claimant company alleged that the defendants had variously received assests (shares and cash) acquired by a former partner in the claimant company and held on his behalf, in breach of his obligations to the caimant partnership. The defendants . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 16-Jan-2013
Application to stay order for costs. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 23-Jul-2015
. .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 14-Oct-2015
Appeal against a finding that payments made by the appellant were made in the ordinary course of business and not in breach of a freezing injunction. . .
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Emmott CA 11-Dec-2015
The court considered a residual jurisdiction to set aside an arbitrator’s award after a first appeal. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Another CA 13-Jan-2017
The appellant company sought to recover assets which, it said, had been acquired by a former partner in breach of his obligations under the partnership agreement, but which had been taken in the names of some of the respondents. There had been an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Arbitration

Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.572292

European Children’s Fashion Association And Instituto De Economia Publica v EACEA: ECFI 5 Oct 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Arbitration clause – Grant Agreement concluded within the framework of the action program’ Lifelong Learning (2007-2013) ‘- Project’ Brand and Merchandising manager for SMEs in the childrens’ product sector ‘- Action for annulment – Non-actionable appeal – Act as part of a purely contractual framework of which he is inseparable – Inadmissible – ineligible costs – Reimbursement of amounts paid – audit report

T-724/14, [2016] EUECJ T-724/14
Bailii
European

European, Arbitration

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569907

Intercon v Commission T-632/14: ECFI 22 Sep 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Arbitration clause – Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) – Commission decision to demand repayment of the sums paid to the applicant – Contractual nature of the dispute – Article 44 paragraph 1 c) and section 5 bis of the Rules of procedure of 2 May 1991 – Admissibility – Scope of the audit – Documents and comments submitted after the expiry of the deadlines

ECLI:EU:T:2016:526, [2016] EUECJ T-632/14
Bailii
European

Arbitration

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569510