Lord Dilhorne said of the words ‘to be settled in London’: ‘At first sight those words appear to me to mean no more and no less than that the contributions to be made have to be determined in London and paid there, and that implies determined in accordance with English law.’ The phrase ‘to be settled in London’ did not to take the dispute out of the scope of an arbitration clause.
Neither Lord Salmond nor Lord Dilhorne could see a difference between clauses poviding for arbitration of disputes ‘arising under’ and ‘arising out of’ a contract.
Judges:
Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Salmon
Citations:
[1975] AC 797
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Cited – Premium Nafta Products Ltd (20th Defendant) and others v Fili Shipping Company Ltd and others; Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov HL 17-Oct-2007
The owners of a ship sought to rescind charters saying that they had been procured by bribery.
Held: A claim to rescind a contract by reason of bribery fell within the scope of an arbitration clause under which the parties had agreed to refer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Arbitration
Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.248209