It was said there had been an ad hoc agreement to refer jurisdictional issue to the adjudicator. The defendant said that he had objected to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
Held: Dyson said, on these particular facts: ‘In my view, the defendants’ solicitor’s letter of 9 March 1999 stated in the clearest terms that the defendants protested the adjudicator’s jurisdiction, and that they would not recognise and comply with any decision to award money to the claimant. The letter also made it clear that, if the adjudication proceeded, they reserved their rights to participate, but without prejudice to their contention that there was no jurisdiction. I do not consider that there can be any reasonable doubt as to the meaning of that letter. The only real question is whether, by participating in the adjudication process, the defendants waived the jurisdiction point, and agreed to submit to abide by the decision of the adjudicator on that issue. The only material relied on by Ms Rawley [Counsel] is the content of the defendants’ response . . But, in their response, the defendants continued to assert that the adjudicator had no jurisdiction . . It is a matter of fact whether a parties submit to the jurisdiction of the third person . .’
Judges:
Dyson J
Citations:
(1999) 65 Con LR 14
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Aedifice Partnership Ltd v Shah TCC 10-Aug-2010
The defendant challenged the arbitration enforcement saying that there had been no contract and therefore no jurisdiction for the arbitration. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.509975
