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 said that the claims had in effect already been decided against the claimants in an arbitration. The court was now asked whether abuse of process may be relied upon where the earlier decision is that of an arbitral tribunal, rather than that of a court.
Held: On the particular facts, it would be an abuse of process to allow a collateral attack on the prior decision of the arbitral tribunal to be made, even though the court proceedings were brought against a non-party to the arbitration.
The question in general is whether the process of the court is being abused by a claim being brought before it.
Teare J accepted that the nature of the tribunal which has given the prior decision may be important in deciding whether the subsequent court proceedings are an abuse of process. This allows for the principle that arbitration proceedings are confidential to the parties of the arbitration. But in deciding whether it is the court’s duty to prevent its processes from being abused, he concluded that ‘there can be no rule that the court can have no such duty merely because the tribunal whose decision is under attack is an arbitral tribunal’.
As to the situation where the parties before the court had not all been parties to the arbitration, Teare J said: ‘it will probably be a rare case where an action in this court against a non-party to an arbitration can be said to be an abuse of the process of this court’. Where a claimant has a claim against two persons and is obliged to bring one claim in arbitration, the defeat of the claim in arbitration will not usually prevent him from pursuing his claim against the other person in litigation.
Judges:
Teare J
Citations:
[2013] 1 All ER (Comm) 476, [2012] EWHC 2560 (Comm)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
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 . .
Cited – Reichel v Magrath PC 1889
The new vicar of Sparsholt, Dr Magrath, was able to rely on the abuse of process even though he had not been party to earlier proceedings between Reichel and the Bishop of Oxford and the Queen’s College and so was not bound by any issue estoppel . .
Cited – Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police HL 19-Nov-1981
No collateral attack on Jury findigs.
An attempt was made to open up in a civil action, allegations of assaults by the police prior to the making of confessions which had been disposed of in a voir dire in the course of a criminal trial. The plaintiffs had imprisoned having spent many . .
Cited – Wiltshire v Powell and others CA 7-May-2004
The claimant sought a declaration as to the ownership of an aircraft. Saying he had bought it in good faith from E H and S, who in turn similarly claimed to have bought it from Ebbs. The defendant had obtained a judgment that he was owner as against . .
Cited – Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and others v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co CA 10-Dec-2004
The court considered the effect of findings in one arbitration on a subsequent arbitration. The arguments being directed to res judicata.
Held: Mance LJ pointed to important differences between litigation and arbitration as a consensual . .
Cited – Bragg v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd CA 1982
The court considered the ability to prevent relitigation of issues already decided. The Court identified some of the limits of the abuse jurisdiction. Kerr LJ said: ‘To take the authorities first, it is clear that an attempt to relitigate in another . .
Cited – Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm) HL 20-Jul-2000
Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers.
Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in . .
Cited – Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and others ComC 26-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Nesbitt v Citizens Advice Bureau and Holt CA 26-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages from the defendant saying that they had compromised his employment law damages claim on his behalf, but without his authority. He had unsuccessfully sought to set aside that settlement in the Employment Tribunal on the . .
Cited – Dadourian Group International Inc and others v Simms and others CA 13-Mar-2009
Arden LJ summarised the approach to be taken by a court faced with an allegation of fraud: ‘Their Lordships affirmed the decision in Re H and provided an explanation of what Lord Nicholls’ judgment meant. Baroness Hale (with whom the other Law Lords . .
Cited – Calyon v Michailaidis and Others PC 15-Jul-2009
(Gibraltar) The test for applying an abuse of process argument is an exacting one. . .
Cited – Heaton and Others v AXA Equity and Law Life Assurance Society plc and Another HL 25-Apr-2002
The claimant had settled one claim in full and final satisfaction against one party, but then sought further damages from the defendant, for issues related to a second but linked contract. The defendant claimed the benefit of the settlement.
Cited – Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd and Others CA 29-Mar-2011
The appellant challenged a decision that it was not entitled to a proprietary interest in the proceeds of sale of some shares which had been acquired with the proceeds of a breach of trust. Specifically, the claims gave rise to (i) an issue as to . .
Cited – Cadogan Petroleum Plc and Others v Tolley and Others ChD 7-Sep-2011
The courts considered various interlocutory applications. . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Michael Wilson and Partners Ltd v Sinclair and Others CA 16-Jan-2013
Application to stay order for costs. . .
Cited – OMV Petrom Sa v Glencore International Ag ComC 7-Feb-2014
The claimant sought to have struck out as abuse of process parts of the defence, saying that the factual issues raised had already been resolved in arbitration proceedings, but as against a different oarty. The defendant replied that the arbitration . .
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. . .
See Also – 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 . .
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.
Company, Trusts, Arbitration
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.464407
