swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Arbitration - From: 1985 To: 1989
This page lists 20 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018.
Zermalt Holdings SA v NuLife Upholstery Repairs Ltd [1985] EGLR 14
1985
Bingham J
Arbitration
The court considered its general approach to appeals against awards in arbitrations. Bingham J said: "as a matter of general approach the courts strive to uphold arbitration awards. They do not approach them with a meticulous legal eye endeavouring to pick holes, inconsistencies and faults in awards and with the objective of upsetting or frustrating the process of arbitration. Far from it. The approach is to read an arbitration award in a reasonable and commercial way expecting, as is usually the case, that there will be no substantial fault that can be found with it."
Arbitration Act 1950
1 Citers
Top Shop Estates Ltd v Danino [1985] 1 EGLR 9
1985
Arbitration
If using his personal knowledge of a specialised character rather than such as may be generally known to an expert in that area, then the arbitrator must afford the parties the chance to comment on that knowledge.
Arbitration Act 1950
1 Citers
Tote Bookmakers Ltd v Development and Property Holding Co. Ltd. [1985] Ch 261
1985
Peter Gibson J
Arbitration
Peter Gibson J defined the phrase undue hardship as "hardship . . not warranted by the circumstances".
Arbitration Act 1950 27
1 Citers
Agromet Motoimport Ltd v Maulden Engineering Co (Beds) Ltd [1985] 2 All ER 436
1985
Arbitration, Limitation
Time begins to run on the collection of an arbitration award, not from the date upon which the award is made or published, but from the date when the paying party is in breach of its implied obligation to pay the award.
1 Citers
British Gas Corporation v Universities Superannuation Scheme [1986] 1 All ER 978; [1986] 1 WLR 398
1986
ChD
Browne Wilkinson VC
Arbitration, Landlord and Tenant
The lease had a five yearly rent review, to be the highest of the current rent the rack rental value at the relevant rate. The rack rent was calculated under a hypothetical lease containing the same provisions (save for rent). The tenant sought a declaration that this was to exclude only the rental value, not other provisions as to rent. Held: The lease was to be construed according to its underlying commercial purpose, and the review should assume a lease containing the same review provisions. As to the general purpose of a rent review clause: "There is really no dispute that the general purpose of a provision for rent review is to enable the landlord to obtain from time to time the market rental which the premises would command if let on the same terms on the open market at the review dates. The purpose is to reflect the changes in the value of money and real increases in the value of the property during a long term."
1 Citers
The Trade Fortitude [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 209
1986
Dillon LJ
Transport, Arbitration, Damages
The purpose of section 19A was to make explicit powers to award interest which had previously rested on implication.
Arbitration Act 1950 19A
1 Citers
Kurkjian v Marketing Exchange No 2 [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 618
1986
Staughton J
Arbitration
If a tribunal employs a lay or legal draftsman, the tribunal has a duty to satisfy themselves that the fee he charges is fair and reasonable; the extent of the work required of the tribunal in examining the fees charged by the lawyer is proportionate to the fees.
1 Citers
Pittalis v Sherefettin; CA 1986 - [1986] 1 QB 868
Scherer v Counting Instruments Ltd (Note) [1986] 1 WLR 615
1986
Arbitration
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.
Supreme Courts Act 1981 18(1)(f)
1 Citers
Compagnie Eurpeene de Cereals SA v Tradax Export SA [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep 301
1986
Arbitration
1 Citers
Dallal v Bank Mellat; 1986 - [1986] 1 QB 441
Commission of the European Communities v Jan Zoubek C-426/85; [1986] EUECJ C-426/85
18 Dec 1986
ECJ
European, Arbitration
Europa Procedure - action brought before the court under an arbitration clause -jurisdiction to hear and determine a counterclaim - basis - conditions (ECSC treaty, art. 42; EEC treaty, art. 181; EAEC treaty, art. 153). Although under an arbitration clause the court is called upon to resolve a dispute in accordance with the national law governing the contract, the question whether it has jurisdiction to hear and determine a counterclaim and to consider whether it is admissible must be assessed solely in the light of article 42 of the ECSC treaty, article 181 of the EEC treaty, article 153 of the EAEC treaty and the court ' s rules of procedure. The jurisdiction of the court, where it is based on an arbitration clause, derogates from the ordinary rules of law and must therefore be given a restrictive interpretation. The court may hear and determine only claims arising from the contract containing the arbitration clause, which was concluded with the community, or claims that are directly connected with the obligations arising from that contract.
[ Bailii ]
Ashville Investments Ltd v Elmer Contractors Ltd; CA 1987 - [1989] 1 QB 488; [1988] 2 All ER 577; (1987) 37 BLR 55; [1988] 3 WLR 867
Aden Refinery Co Ltd v Ugland Management Co Ltd [1987] 1 QB 650
1987
CA
Sir John Donaldson MR, Mustill LJ
Arbitration
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 1(6A) of the same Act. It was submitted that the ouster of the jurisdiction of the court was subject to what was called a concealed exception which came into play if the judge failed to exercise his discretion judicially. Section 18(1)(f) of the SCA 1981 was on its face limited and the limitation had been construed restrictively and that, by contrast, section 1(6A) of the Arbitration Act 1979 was not so limited.
Arbitration Act 1979 1(3)(b) 1(6A)
1 Cites
1 Citers
R v Switzerland 10881/84
4 Mar 1987
ECHR
Human Rights, Arbitration
(Commission) "whereas the inclusion of an arbitration clause in an agreement between individuals amounts legally to partial renunciation of the exercise of those rights defined by Article 6 para. 1; whereas nothing in the text of that Article nor of any other article of the Convention explicitly prohibits such renunciation; whereas the Commission is not entitled to assume that the Contracting States, in accepting the obligations arising under Article 6 para. 1, intended to prevent persons coming under their jurisdiction from entrusting the settlement of certain matters to arbitrators; whereas the disputed arbitration clause might have been regarded as contrary to the Convention if X. had signed it under constraint, which was not the case."
1 Citers
K/S A/S Bill Biakh v Hyundai Corporation [1988] 1 Lloyds Rep 187
1988
Arbitration
1 Citers
Bank Mellat v GAA Development and Construction Co; 1988 - [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep 44
Naviera Maritima Peruana SA v Compania Internacional de Seguros de Peru [1988] 1 Lloyds Rep 1116
1988
CA
Kerr LJ
Arbitration, International
Unless agreed otherwise, the law of the "seat" of the arbitration will govern its conduct. The court overruled a first instance decision that an arbitration was to be conducted in Lima as the agreed forum (and therefore seat), but with English law as the lex fori. LJ Kerr referred to the complexities and inconveniences which such an arrangement would cause, including the impossibility or at best difficulty of the English Court exercising jurisdiction over an arbitration proceeding in Peru.
1 Citers
A and B v D and C; CA 1989 - [1989] 1 QB 488
Fillite (Runcorn) Ltd v Aqua-Lift (1989) CLR 66; (1989) 26 Const LR 66; (1989) 45 BLR 27
1989
CA
Nourse LJ, Slade LJ
Construction, Arbitration
The court considered whether claims arising from misrepresentation or breach of a collateral contrat were claims arising 'under' the contract so as to be governed by the disputes provisions in it. Held: The disputes did not arise 'under the contract as such. Slade LJ said that the phrase "under a contract" was not wide enough to include disputes which did not concern obligations created by or incorporated in the contract. Nourse LJ agreed.
Nourse LJ: "The preposition "under" presupposes that the noun which it governs already has some existence. It operates in time as well as in space. I think that it means 'as a result of' and with reference to'. The disputes as to express or implied terms in the composite Peterborough contract arise both as a result of and with reference to that contract and are therefore within clause 14 of the heads of agreement. The disputes as to negligent misstatement, misrepresentation under the misrepresentation Act 1967 and collateral warranty or contract, while they may in a loose sense be said to arise with reference to the contract, cannot be said to arise as a result of it. They all relate to matters which either preceded the contract or were at best contemporaneous with it. Those disputes are therefore outside clause 14 and I agree with Slade LJ that the material words are not wide enough to include disputes which do not concern obligations created by or incorporated in the contract."
Slade LJ held the phrase "disputes arising under a contract" to be not wide enough to include disputes which do not concern obligations created by or incorporated in that contract.
1 Citers
