The discretion in the court to to appoint an arbitrator under section 19(1) should not be narrowed without good reason. He continued: ‘In every such case there must come a time when the Court can properly refuse to grant [the relief sought] not because its dignity has been affronted nor in order to punish the applicant, but simply because it is wrong to grant a remedy to someone who has for so long neglected his right to seek it. The power to refuse relief in such circumstances is one which every Court in the land would wish to preserve. Accordingly, I cannot accept that inordinate and inexcusable delay is only capable of defeating an application under s.10(1) if it has caused serious prejudice to the other party.’
Judges:
Nourse LJ
Citations:
[1996] 2 Lloyds LR 461
Statutes:
Arbitration Act 1950 10(1) 19(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Crystal Eye Management (Pty) Limited v Entertainment Guarantees Limited and Broad CA 15-Jan-1997
The plaintiffs underwrote a film. The excesses for which they were liable were insured. The plaintiffs came to claim under the insurance, and Lloyds sought to intervene. The plaintiffs obtained judgement against the defendants by default. It later . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Arbitration
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.193405
