Home   About us   About ADR   NADR Services   Publications
  Forms   Members   Forums   Links   NMA
• Adjudication
• Adjudication Federal Australia
• Adjudication Law Reports
• Adjudication Law Reports 1999
• Adjudication Law Reports 2000
• Adjudication Law Reports 2001
• Adjudication Law Reports 2002
• Adjudication Law Reports 2003
• Adjudication Law Reports 2004
• Adjudication Law Reports 2005
• Adjudication Law Reports 2006
• Adjudication Law Reports 2007
• Adjudication Law Reports 2008
• Adjudication Law Reports Index
• Adjudication New South Wales
• Adjudication New Zealand
• Adjudication Northern Territory
• Adjudication Queensland
• Adjudication Singapore
• Adjudication South Australia
• Adjudication Tasmania
• Adjudication Victoria
• Adjudication Western Australia
• ADR Law Reports
• ADR Law Reports 1997
• ADR Law Reports 1998
• ADR Law Reports 1999
• ADR Law Reports 2000
• ADR Law Reports 2001
• ADR Law Reports 2002
• ADR Law Reports 2003
• ADR Law Reports 2004
• ADR Law Reports 2005
• ADR Law Reports 2006
• ADR Law Reports 2007
• ADR Law Reports 2008
• ADR Law Reports Index
• Alernative Dispute Resolution
• Arbitration
• Arbitration Law Reports 1996
• Arbitration Law Reports 1997
• Arbitration Law Reports 1998
• Arbitration Law Reports 1999
• Arbitration Law Reports 2000
• Arbitration Law Reports 2001
• Arbitration Law Reports 2002
• Arbitration Law Reports 2003
• Arbitration Law Reports 2004
• Arbitration Law Reports 2005
• Arbitration Law Reports 2006
• Arbitration Law Reports 2007
• Arbitration Law Reports 2008
• Arbitration Law Reports Index
• Arbitration Older Reports
• Banking
• Commercial Law Reports 1997
• Commercial Law Reports 1998
• Commercial Law Reports 1999
• Commercial Law Reports 2000
• Commercial Law Reports 2001
• Commercial Law Reports 2002
• Commercial Law Reports 2003
• Commercial Law Reports 2004
• Commercial Law Reports 2005
• Commercial Law Reports 2006
• Commercial Law Reports 2007
• Commercial Law Reports 2008
• Commercial Law Reports Index
• Conflicts of Law
• Constitution Law Reports
• Constitutional Law
• Construction
• Construction Law Reports
• Construction Law Reports 2000
• Construction Law Reports 2001
• Construction Law Reports 2002
• Construction Law Reports 2003
• Construction Law Reports 2004
• Construction Law Reports 2005
• Construction Law Reports 2006
• Construction Law Reports 2007
• Construction Law Reports 2008
• Construction Law Reports Index
• Dispute Review Boards
• Education
• Employment
• Intellectual Property
• Legal Research
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Mediation
• Medical
• Private International Law
• Public International Law
• Public Law
• Shipping & Trade
• Sports Law
• Who's Who



View a printer friendly version of this page.
Bawejem Ltd v M C Fabrications Ltd [1998] APP.L.R. 12/04
Stay s9 AA 1996 : assignment : prohibition: on appeal from Truro County Court (HHJ Anthony Thompson QC) : A contract contained an arbitration clause : contract assigned contrary to a prohibition clause on assignment. Held : Refusal to grant a stay to arbitration upheld. CA. 4th December 1998.
by Mantell LJ; Robert Walker LJ. Crown Copyright

Cegelec Projects Ltd v. Pirelli Construction Co Ltd [1998] APP.L.R. 05/21
Jurisdiction : Application to determine : Whether or not the main contract dispute resolution terms including prior submission to conciliation applied to subcontract. Held : no – dispute to be referred to arbitration. TCC. 21st May 1998.
by HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. Crown Copyright

Guaranteed Ashphalt v. Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [1998] APP.L.R. 06/05
Application s23 AA 1996 Removal for misconduct : Acrimonious arbitration – with much bad feeling on both sides – arbitrator remained professional at all times. Application groundless and refused. “This application was made 1 year after publication of Award no 1. The order was issued over 15 months before. No complaint had been made previously that the Order was one the arbitrator had no power to make. It is doomed to fail. Although the Order could be described as procedural mishap, it is not misconduct. It was made at the express request of one party without the other objecting. The arbitrator can hardly be faulted for making the Order. It is open to G to apply to the arbitrator to lift the stay, even if the sums provided for in the Order are not paid. If the arbitrator declines to do so, G could, if it wished make another misconduct application. I refuse the application for leave to amend.” TCC. 5th June 1998.
by HHJ Thornton QC : Crown Copyright

Huyton SA v Jakil SPA [1998] APP.L.R. 03/98
Strike out – want of prosecution – arbitral award. appeal from the order of Mr Justice Clarke QBD. Action challenging an arbitral award struck out at first instance for want of prosecution. S13A & s22 Arbitration Act 1950 – arbitrator’s power to strike out / power of court to remit to arbitrator for further consideration. Strike out upheld. CA. 24th March 1998.
by Roch LJ; Aldous LJ; Brooke LJ : Crown Copyright.

Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution (A Firm) [1998] APP.L.R. 09/30
Stay to arbitration : s9 : approved. CA. 30th September 1998.
by Hobhouse LJ; Thorpe LJ; Mummery LJ.

Jassim Wylie v Robert Howie Corrigan and Anthony Ansari [1998] APP.L.R. 10/13
Application to cist to arbitration rejected. The litigation had proceeded without objection and decisions entered upon the record. Applicant had waived right to arbitration. 13 October 1998
by Lords Coulsfield; Milligan; Allanbridge. Crown Copyright

Latvian Shipping Co v Insurance Co \"Ingosstrakh\" Ltd [1998] APP.L.R. 11/27
Stay s9 AA 1996 : Forum Inconveniens. Claim for Roll back relief under CRISTAL arrangements for pollution cover : claim met with application for stay to arbitration. Conflicts issued : does contract (Moscow arbitration) or Rules (UK court) apply? Held : Neither directly applicable. Stay to arbitration refused. UK Court jurisdiction. Commercial Court. 27th November 1998.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Lesquende Ltd v. Planning & Environment Committee of the States of Jersey [1998] APP.L.R. 02/11
Costs. General principles as to whether, where a party is obliged to determine by statute a valuation by arbitration, that party is entitled to recover reasonable costs of the process – in this case in relation to compulsory purchase of land. Privy Council. 11th February 1998.
by Lords Browne-Wilkinson ; Nicholls ; Hoffmann ; Clyde ; Hutton. Crown Copyright

Morgan Sindall Plc v Sawston Farms (Cambs) Ltd [1998] APP.L.R. 12/03
Challenge to a ?non-speaking? expert valuation. After the determination of a valuation for the purposes of exercising an option to purchase a right of way the purchasor discovered he already had an easement over the lang. Held : In the absence of fraud, valuation enforceable - even if made on an incorrect basis. No reasons required to support the valuation. 3rd December 1998
by Robert Hutchinson LJ; Robert Walker LJ; Tuckey L.J. Crown Copyright

National Power Plc v National Grid Co Plc [1998] APP.L.R. 07/16
Challenge : Jurisdiction Tribunal : Scope of jurisdiction under contract. on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Tuckey) upholding the jurisdiction of an arbitrator under the Electricity Act 1989 and the relevant contracts to determine disputes – and respective jurisdiction of “The Director”.CA. 16th July 1998.
by Millett LJ; Morritt LJ; Potter LJ. Crown Copyright

O\'Callaghan v Coral Racing Ltd [1998] APP.L.R. 11/19
Illegality : Unenforceable contract. Purported agreement to arbitrate gambling transaction. Since gambling debts are not enforceable, this was not an arbitration agreement related to the settlement of legal rights. Thus the arbitral award was not enforceable. CA. 19th November 1998.
by Hirst LJ; May LJ; Sir Christopher Slade : Crown Copyright

Ron Jones (Burton-on-Trent) Ltd v John Stewart & Jacqueline Dorothy Hall [1998] APP.L.R. 04/07
Double Jeopardy : Attempt to keep items out of jurisdiction of arbitrator and submit them to a separate arbitration : Held : Not permitted in the circumstance of the case : First arbitrator?s decision final in ruling out the items. 7th April 1998.
by His Honour Judge Humphrey LLoyd QC. Crown Copyright

Soleimany v Soleimany [1998] APP.L.R. 02/19
Illegality : An English Court will not enforce an award that involves enforcing an illegal contract, whether that contract be in England or in a friendly foreign country. Policy exception. CA. 19th February 1998.
by Morritt LJ; Waller LJ; Sir Christopher Staughton. Crown Copyright

Stanton v Callaghan [1998] APP.L.R. 07/08
Expert Witness : Liability to client : An expert prepared a list of agreed opinion between himself and the otherside's appointed expert. The claimant sought to hold his expert liable for prejudicing his case. The court held the expert's duty is to the court, not the client - and the expert has immunity from suit if by acting in such a manner the client's case is less persuasive than it might otherwise have been. CA. 8th July 1998.
by Nourse LJ; Otton LJ; Chadwick LJ. Crown Copyright

Taylor v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [1998] APP.L.R 10/29
Expert Witness : Scope of and rationale for the immunity of expert witness in a criminal case. House of Lords. 29th October 1998.
by Lords Lloyd : Goff : Hoffmann : Hope : Hutton. Crown Copyright

Total Gas Marketing Ltd v. ARCO British Ltd [1998] APP.L.R. 05/20
Declaration – expert determination. Disputes subject to expert determination procedure : dispute arose as to interpretation of contract – whether a valid contract in place – discussions regarding conditions precedent & subsequent. House of Lords. 20th May 1998.
by Lords Slynn; Nolan; Steyn ; Hope ; Hutton. Crown Copyright

Uzdon v Romak SA [1998] APP.L.R. 11/06
Challenge s68. Claim dismissed with indemnity costs, as unfounded. Paper only arbitration quite suitable in the circumstances. Commercial Court. 6th November 1998.
by Mr Justice Langley : Crown Copyright

Our publications are provided in PDF format, in order to view them you will need Adobe's free Acrobat reader. Acrobat reader can be downloaded from Adobe by following the link to your left.

Top of page

    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.