THE NATIONWIDE ACADEMY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (UK) Ltd.  
   
   
Home   About us   About ADR   NADR Services   Publications
 
   
  Forms   Members   Forums   Links   NMA
 
     
       
   
• ABC OF LAW REPORTS
• ABC OF STATUTES
• ADJUDICATION ACTS
• Adjudication Case Summaries
• ADJUDICATION CASES
• Adjudication New South Wales
• Adjudication NewZealand
• Adjudication Queensland
• Adjudication Reports AU/NZ
• Adjudication Singapore
• Adjudication Victoria
• Adjudication Western Australia
• Adjudicator Nomination Bodies
• ADMIRALTY CASES
• ADR
• ADR in WALES
• ADR NEWS
• ADR Organisations
• Arbitration
• ARBITRATION ACTS
• ARBITRATION CASES
• Arbitration Cases Ireland
• Arbitration Cases Scotland
• Banking and Finance
• Building Claims Consultants
• CONFLICTS ACTS
• CONFLICTS CASES
• Conflicts Lectures
• CONSTITUTION ACTS
• CONSTITUTION CASES
• Constitutional Law
• Construction Bodies
• Construction Law
• CONSTRUCTION LAW CASES
• CONTRACT LAW CASES
• Court Mediation Schemes
• Directories - Yellow Pages
• Dispte Review Boards
• Educational establishments
• Employment Dispute Resolution
• Environment
• Ethics
• European Law and Institutions
• EXPERT WITNESS CASES
• Expert witnesses
• Export Import Directory
• Family Mediation
• Government Bodies
• Health Care Dispute Resolution
• HOME BUILDING CASES
• Intellectual Property
• International Arbitration
• International Trade Law
• Law Societies and Associations
• Legal Publishers
• Legal Research
• Legal Skills
• MARINE INSURANCE CASES
• Maritime Law
• Mediation
• MEDIATION CASES
• Mediation Organisations
• Middle East ADR
• ODR - On Line Dispute Resolution
• On-line ADR Journals and Newsletters
• Practitioners
• PROCEDURE CASES
• SHIPPING - TRANSPORT CASES
• Sources of Law
• Sport
• Telecommunications
• TORT CASES
• Trade Organisations
• Travel

Login
Username

Password



View a printer friendly version of this page.
 

0 Arbitration Law Reports Arbitration, Practice and Procedure Law Reports. APP.L.R. pdf Case transcripts in NADR House Style

1 Arbitration Case Data Base By Date NADR Arbitration, Practice & Procedure Cases in reverse date order starting with the most recent case. Last updated 6th November 2008.

2 Arbitration Case Data Base by Topic NADR Arbitration,Practice & Procedure Cases Indexed by topic. Last updated 6th November 2008.

3 Arbitration Case Database by name Data base of Arbitration Cases from England, Wales and N.I. listed by citation. Last updated 6th November 2008.

4 David Martin Clark Case Notes Case summaries on arbitration and jurisdictional issues related to shipping.

5 C.I.Arb Chartered Institute of Arbitrators : Arbitration Law Reports (Members only - must log in).

A v B [2006] EWHC 2006 (Comm) Family arbitration. Whether, given that the seat of the arbitration was indisputably Geneva, the court should decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over the tribunal in respect of the claims against the arbitrator as an appropriate arbitrator under a void or rescinded arbitration agreement and as to the various personal claims for damages for breach of his various alleged duties to A. Colman Mr Justice. 28th July 2006.

A v B [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm) Costs of a successful application for a stay to arbitration normally awarded on an indemnity basis. Colman J 23rd January 2007.

ABB Ag v Hochtief Airport GmbH & Anor [2006] EWHC 388 (Comm) Failed section 68 challenge to an award. Mr Justice Tomlinson. 8th March 2006.

ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne [2002] EWHC 2024 (Comm) New York Award – enforcement : joinder refused. Application for joinder regarding action for enforcement of a New York Award. Held : The purpose of joinder was for matters not relevant to enforcement / resistance under New York and accordingly refused. HHJ Chambers QC. 28th August 2002

Abu Dhabi Investment Co v H Clarkson & Company Ltd. [2006] EWHC 1252 (Comm) Application for stay to arbitration in the UAE. Court held that since arbitration as opposed to litigation in the UAE, of a dispute not related to the execution of a contract, is permissive, not compulsory, this amounted to an application for a stay to litigation in the UAE. Accordingly the application was refused. Mr Justice Morison, 26th May 2006.

Ace Capital Ltd v CMS Energy Corporation [2008] EWHC 1843 (Comm) Successful application for a permanent anti-suit injunction in respect of Michegan litigation - in favour of LCIA arbitration of insurance disputes. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 30th July 2008.

Agrimex Ltd. v Tradigrain SA [2003] EWHC 1656 (Comm) Recovery of winning party?s costs before a GAFTA appeal tribunal from the losing party. ?In my judgment, the size of the team employed and the time spent was wholly excessive and disproportionate to the issues involved. The Claimants had been prepared to pay, prior to the hearing, the sum of ?6,500; that was in my view a generous amount in all the circumstances, but I will not go below it. I summarily assess the costs at ?6,500.? Mr Justice Thomas. 9th July 2003.

Agropol Trading Praha SRO v Podex SRO [1997] EWCA Civ 2589 S22 AA 1950 : s23 AA 1950 Misconduct : procedural mishap. Unsuccessful application for a GAFTA appeal board award to be remitted to under Sections 22 or 23 of the 1950 Act on grounds of either misconduct or procedural mishap. CA. Hobhouse LJ : Pill LJ. 29th October, 1997.

Ahmad Al-Naimi (t/a Buildmaster Construction Services) v Islamic Press Agency Inc [2000] EWCA Civ 17 Stay to arbitration : s9 : Stay issued at 1st instance - leaving it to tribunal to rule on jurisdiction : On appeal stay confirmed - but CA chose to address the jurisdiction issue and found the tribunal had jurisdiction. Waller LJ; Chadwick LJ. 28th January 2000.

Ahmed v London Borough Of Southwark [1997] EWCA Civ 2323 Removal of arbitrator s23 AA 1950. Appeal against refusal to dismiss arbitrator. Appeal terms altered to assert that the tribunal extended its jurisdiction. Appeal granted. Grounds were arguable ? giving rise to the need for a hearing. Morritt LJ; Phillips LJ. 2nd September 1997.

Ahmed v London Borough Of Southwark [1998] EWCA Civ 826 Where at a subsequent hearing a rent tribunal is required to assess damages for non repair it is not open to the tribunal at that hearing to determine that there has been no breach of the requirement to repair. Award set aside. Evans LJ; Millett LJ; Auld LJ. 13th May 1998.

Ahmed v London Borough Of Southwark [1997] EWHC Admin 551 Pro-se applicant to a Tenancy Arbitration Tribunal initially sought repair work but no damages. Subsequently appealed in an attempt to recover damages by alleging that he was denied an opportunity to present his case. Court found he had the necessary opportunity and presented his case but failed. Appeal against that failure also failed. Highlights the dangers of acting pro-se where the applicant does not understand the law or relevant procedures. Mr Justice Laws. 12th June 1997.

AIC Ltd v Marine Pilot Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 175 Charterparty : Deadwieght & safeport clauses. Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Sir William Aldous and Longmore LJ:. 7th March 2008

AIG Capital Partners Inc v Kazakhstan [2005] EWHC 2239 (Comm) Enforcement of arbitral award : State immunity - funds to the a/c of the National Bank of the State of Kazakhstan. Interim order attaching funds discharged. Mr Justice Aitkens. Commercial Court. 20th October 2005.

Albon v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd (No 4) [2007] EWHC 1879 (Ch) Anti-suit injunction : renewal. Granted since respondent would not unconditionally accept that the question as to whether a signature had been forged was solely in the jurisdiction of the English Court - it would be oppressive and unconscionable to allow a duplication of proceedings. Mr Justice Lightman. 31st July 2007

Albon (t/a N A Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading SDN BHD [2007] EWHC 327 (Ch) Alternative service application ; On going saga : discussed role of CPR in respect of management of this dispute which attempts to grow like Topsey. The time scale for issue of a claim was running out and applicant having failed to issue sought permission for alternative service : Application denied. Mr Justice Lightman. 9th March 2007

Albon (t/a N A Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading SDN BHD [2007] EWHC 665 (Ch) Stay. Jurisdiction : Existence of contract and Malaysian arbitration clause. Held : English Court had first to determine existence of contract before a stay to arbitration could be ordered. Mr Justice Lightman. Chancery Div. 29th March 2007

Albon (t/a N A Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading SDN BHD & Anor [2007] EWHC 9 (Ch) Stay s9 : forum ; Multi-faceted dispute : car sales to Malaysia : some aspects subject to Malaysian arbitration : other aspects entirely UK based and not subject to arbitration. Permission to pursue certain claims annulled. Mr Justice Lightman. 23rd January 2007

Albon (t/a NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading SDN BHD [2007] EWCA Civ 1124 Oppressive and vexatious : Court has jurisdiction to determine whether documents that would terminate arbitral proceedings were fraudulent. Waller LJ; Longmore LJ; Sir Peter Gibson. 6th November 2007

Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH v Societe Cargill France [1997] EWCA Civ 2811 Anti suit : Reference to ECJ – re legality of injunction. Reference to ECJ to determine whether an anti-suit injunction can be issued where a defendant institutes litigation in an EC court contrary to an arbitration clause and in breach of contract. Staughton LJ; Phillips LJ; Robert Walker LJ. 25th November 1997.

Ali Shipping Corp v Shipyard Trogir [1997] EWCA Civ 3054 Confidentiality : bar against use of information gathered in one arbitration in a subsequent arbitration. Beldam LJ; Potter LJ; Brooke LJ. 19th december 1997.

Ali Shipping Corporation v Sour Brodogradeevna Industrija [1996] EWCA Civ 1258 Stay to arbitration : Having participated in an on-going arbitration a party discovered a get out card viz a cancellation clause : They sought a judicial determination in lieu of arbitration : CA held : Too late to back out of the arbitration. If this was a preliminary matter tribunal could deal with it quickly. Hirst LJ; Waite LJ; Peter Gibson LJ. 19th December 1996.

Allianz SpA (formerly Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA) v West Tankers Inc.Case C‑185/07 Anti Suit injunction in support of arbitration : Whether compatible with EU Law. Opinion (non-binding) to the ECJ by Advocat General Kokott. Non-compatible - following rationale in Turner v Grovit. All courts in member states are Kompetenze Kompetenze - and deserve to be accorded mutual respect. 4th September 2008.

Amec v Secretary for State for Transport [2004] EWHC 2339 Unsuccessful challenge to an arbitrator's interim award on jurisdiction. Mr Jackson J. 11th October 2004

American International Speciality Lines Insurance Co. v Abbott Laboratories [2003] 1 Lloyd\'s Rep 267 CPR r. 6.20(5)(c). Anti-suit injunction : Challenge. Validity of arbitration agreement. Mr Justice Cresswell. 28th November 2002.

Anaconda Operations P/L v Fluor Australia P/L [2003] VSC 275 Commercial Arbitration - Award - Application for leave to appeal against award of Arbitral Tribunal - Manifest error of law in relation to Arbitral Tribunal\'s rejection of claimed remedy for breach of contract to construct mining facility - Court\'s restricted jurisdiction to review arbitral awards - Error must be obvious without need for prolonged adversarial argument - Judge entitled to consider documents incorporated by reference in award - Relevance of technical, complex and ambiguous nature of award - Arbitral Tribunal failed to approach remedy for breach of warranty in accordance with established legal principles - Imposed on victim of breach the onus of establishing its claimed remedy the only one - Manifest error of law more than merely arguable and obvious on face of award - Determination of question of law could substantially affect the rights of one or more parties to the arbitration - Leave to appeal granted - Judge determined appeal instanter - Award and Reasons for Judgment remitted to Arbitral Tribunal - Allegation of technical misconduct on ground that remedy denied on basis of an issue not live or put to the parties not determined, as appropriate relief of remission granted on alternative ground - Allegation that awards of interest involved technical misconduct by reason of denial of natural justice not founded - Allegation that parties denied opportunity to adduce evidence or make submissions in relation to interest not founded - Natural justice or procedural fairness did not require publication of principal findings with opportunity for further submissions on interest. Dodds-Streton J.Supreme Court Victoria. 28th July 2003

Andrews (t/a B A Contractors) v Bradshaw [1999] EWCA Civ 2008 Bias. Did an impatient exchange between arbitrator and respondent raise a real possibility of bias? Not in the circumstances. Nourse LJ, Mantell LJ, Mance LJ. 29th July 1999.

Andrews, Trustee Of Property Of v Brock Buildings (Kessingland) Ltd [1996] EWCA Civ 1023 Dispute about delay on a contract. Sub-contractor alleged contractor responsible. Contractor terminated the contract. Sub-contractor put into liquidation by a creditor for ?8K. Administrator in pursuit of ?120K. Contractor commenced action for ?60K for delay. Sub-contractor applied for a stay to arbitration ? acceded to at first instance ? sub-contractor likely to recover ?70K for wrongful determination ? contractor claim likely to fail. Appeal on grounds of sub-contractor?s poor financial status. Appeal failed : Appears likely that the sub-contractor?s financial state due to the contractor?s wrong doing. Stay to arbitration affirmed. MR. Aldous LJ; Brooke LJ. 21st Navember 1996.

Apis AS v Fantazia Kereskedelmi KFT (2000) Lawtel AC0300496 s103 AA 1996 : Application for stay of enforcement of an award pending hearing of application to set aside award. Award a New York Convention award from Slovia\'s perspective where an enforcement action pending. Raymond Jack J. 21st September 2000.

Arab National Bank v El-Abdali [2004] EWHC 2381 (Comm) S72 AA 1996 : Set aside : fraud; Arbitral award the result of fraud : set aside. Mr Justice Morison. 22nd October 2004

Ardentia Ltd. v British Telecommunications Plc [2008] EWHC B12 (Ch) s9 AA 1996 : stay - jurisdiction of Chncery to issue interim injunction : arbitral tribunal to issue permanent injnction : David Donaldson Q.C.19th June 2008.

Armstrong, R (on the application of) v Chartered Institute Of Arbitrators [1997] EWHC Admin 561 Reasons - adequacy; An arbitrator issued an award in respect of alleged liability for subsidence. A complaint was made that insufficient reasons were provided. The arbitrator was asked to expand. He essentially refused asserting the reasons in the award were sufficient and self explanatory. The CIArb, Professional Conduct Committee concluded that the reasons were inadequate but did not question the actual award. Following this the Panel Management Group determined that any subsequent award would first be vetted by the PMC before being released to ensure adequate reasons were provided. Armstrong felt slighted by all this resulting in this action. The court agreed with the CIArb that the reasons were inadequate and did not address the issue at hand. Mr Justice Owen. 17th June 1997.

Asghar v Legal Services Commission [2004] EWHC 1803 (Ch) S9 AA 1996 : Stay to arbitration. Successful application for stay to arbitration : impact of Human Rights Act. Mr Justice Lightman. 22nd July 2004.

ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England [2005] EWHC 2238 (Comm) Bias : apparent : Arbitrator acted as counsel in another case for a principal witness to the current arbitration. Tribunal prepared to continue without an Umpire and to resort to an alternative Umpire if the circumstances demanded. Held : Arbitrator should step down. Mr Justice Morison. Commercial Court. 19th October 2005.

ASM Shipping Ltd of India v TTMI Ltd of England [2006] EWCA Civ 1341 Challenge s68(4) serious irregularity; The apparent bias was said to arise because on a previous occasion the umpire, in his capacity as leading counsel had been instructed by a ship owner in an earlier case in respect of an allegation that the opposite party was or might be concealing relevant documents. The umpire was not counsel in the case but was instructed on that application. The umpire had had no contact with the owner. The owner appeared as witness for the respondent in the instant case. The matter was raised late. The umpire declined to recuse himself. The parties continued the arbitration without recourse to a s24 application for removal. They unsuccessfully appealed. This further CA appeal also failed. Clarke MR. Rix LJ. Longmore LJ. 16th October 2006.

ASM Shipping Ltd. of India v TTMI Ltd. of England [2007] EWHC 927 (Comm) s28 AA 1996 : Application for removal of an arbitrator. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke.20th April 2007

ASM Shipping Ltd. v Harris & Ors [2007] EWHC 1513 (Comm) Application for removal or arbitrators : s28 AA 1996. Mr. Justice Andrew Smith : 28th June 2007.


Associated Electric & Gas Insurance Services Ltd v. European Reinsurance Co of Zurich (Bermuda) [2003] UKPC 11 Confidentiality Privacy : application for injunction against disclosure; Scope of rules of privacy and whether an award could be used as evidence in a subsequent award. In the circumstances a prior injunction that had been revoked by the CA continued to be lifted. Injunction to prevent disclosure of arbitral award to third parties. Applicants on appeal wish to produce a prior award subject to a confidentiality agreement as evidence to establish an issue estoppel. Held : Not admissible. Injunction against submission upheld. Lords Bingham; Hoffmann Hobhouse; Millett; Sir Christopher Staughton. 29th January 2003

AT&T Corporation & Anor v Saudi Cable Company [2000] EWCA Civ 154 Independence of arbitration : Application for removal : MR; Potter LJ; May LJ. 15th May 2000.

Athletic Union Of Constantinople v National Basketball Association [2002] EWCA Civ 830 CPR 52.9 Strike out and set aside; on appeal from Commercial Court (Deputy Judge Mr Richard Field QC) Failed s67 set aside application and failed s69 application to appeal. Also refusal to appeal against s67 application. Held : only the judge can determine application to appeal – not the CA. There is no appeal to CA against a refusal to grant application to appeal.Lord Philliips MR ; Robert Walker LJ; Clarke LJ. 28th May 2002.

Atlanska Plovidba v Consignaciones Asturianas SA [2004] EWHC 1273 (Comm) Appointment s18 ; The court is here concerned not with an excusive jurisdiction clause but with an international arbitration clause. If the defendant sought to pursue a claim that fell within the arbitration agreement in Spain, the court would be bound to grant a stay under the New York Convention. In these circumstances it would be contrary to the spirit of the Convention for this court to refuse to exercise its power to appoint an arbitrator. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 27th May 2004.

Axa Re v Ace Global Markets Ltd. [2006] EWHC 216 (Comm) Jurisdiction; Reinsuance slip contained a choice of law and jurisdiction clause – but also incorporated terms of a contract containing an arbitration clause : Which prevailed? Held : applying Paul Smith v H&S International Holding Inc [1991] 2 Lloyd\'s Law Rep at 127 that the arbitration clause prevailed.Application by Axa for a declaration under section 72(1)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 that a reinsurance contract between Axa and Ace Global Markets does not, on its true construction, include an arbitration agreement. The application also seeks injunctive relief to restrain Ace from continuing arbitration proceedings, instituted by it against Axa. Mrs Justice Gloster. 20th January 2006

Banco Nacional De Comercio Exterior SNC v Empresa De Telecomunicationes De Cuba SA [2006] EWHC 19 (Comm) Freezing orders. ICC arbitration award – enforced by Italian court. Domestic freezing order and worldwide freezing order made in UK. Paris court of appeal then annulled the arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitration should have been in Spain. Application to annul the freezing orders refused – a real risk of dissipation of funds. Mr Justice David Steel. 24th January 2007.

Bandwidth Shipping Corporation v Intaari [2007] EWCA Civ 998 S68 AA 1996 : remitting award to tribunal. Charterparty payment of hire dispute. Failed appeal against refusal of 1st instance judge to remit an award under s68 AA 1996. Waller LJ, Gage LJ; Lawrence Collins LJ. 17th October 2007

Bandwith Shipping Corp. v Intaari [2006] EWHC 2532 (Comm) Challenge s68(2) remit for reconsideration. Application pursuant to s68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 (\"the Act\") for an order that the Court should remit for reconsideration an award of an arbitral tribunal on the ground that there has been a serious irregularity in the conduct of the arbitration in that the Tribunal failed to comply with its duty under section 33 of the Act. Issue : Whether a finding of fact challengeable on the basis that party there was no opportunity to address the issue at the hearing. Held : No. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 17th October 2006.

Bankers Trust Co v P.T. Jakarta International Hotels & Developments [1999] 1 Lloyd\'s Rep 910 Anti-suit injunction against Indonesian litigation in support of an LCIA arbitration agreement. Mr Justice Cresswell. 12th March 1999.

Bawejem Ltd v M C Fabrications Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1910 Stay s9 AA 1996 : assignment : prohibition. CA 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. Mantell LJ; Robert Walker LJ. 4th December 1998.

Bay Hotel v. Cavalier Construction Co. Ltd. [2001] UKPC 34 Challenge : set aside : reasoned award : joinder of third party. Where a reasoned award was required could an award be set aside for insufficient reasons? Award subject to the AAA arbitral rules – so test of sufficient reasons to be based on AAA rules – not what would be sufficient under English Law. In the circumstances there were sufficient reasons. However, an award regarding joinder of a third party set aside – outside remit of the tribunal. Lords Nicholls ; Cooke ; Clyde; Hutton; Millett. 16th July 2001.

Bea Hotels NV v Bellway Llc [2007] EWHC 1363 (Comm) Challenge s67 - to jurisdiction on grounds that the contract had been repudiated. Mr Justice Cooke : 12th June 2007.

Benaim (UK) Ltd. v Davies Middleton & Davies Ltd [2005] EWHC 1370 (TCC) Application to remove an arbitrator refused. HHJ Coulson. Peter. 15th June 2005.

Benford Ltd. v Lopecan SL [2004] EWHC 1897 (Comm) Stay to arbitration s9 jurisdiction. Main contract contained an arbitration clause – but individual supply contracts subject to litigation. Counterclaim to a supply contract had potential to involve main contract issues if sum due rose above a certain level. Court refused stay – decided the amount – in the event below the limit. Court pointed out that once the figure was fixed by the court, an arbitration would be pointless since all the tribunal could do would be to confirm the judgment figure. Mr Justice Morison. 30th July 2004

Bernuth Lines Ltd v High Seas Shipping Ltd [2005] EWHC 3020 (Comm) Electronic Communications : Were email communications between the arbitrator and the parties effective? In the cirucmstances "any effective menas" of communication were anticipated. The arbitrator sent notices to the email address on the defendant's web site. The receiving department did not forward them to the legal department. In consequence they did not submit a defence or attend the arbitration resulting in a valid default judgement. Commercial Court before Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 21st December 2005.

Bhai v Black Roof Community Housing Association Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 276 Challenge s69 : statutory interpretation. CA on appeal from Central London County Court : Question – whether or not a tenant had a right to buy – whether a secured tenant and impact of housing association status. Kennedy LJ ; Jonathan Parker LJ. 2nd November 2000.

BHP Billiton Ltd v Oil Basins Ltd [2006] VSC 402 Reasons : adequacy of reasons for making award – relevant principles discussed – whether inadequacy of reasons an error of law – \"technical\" misconduct – relevant principles discussed – whether failure to deal with substantial and serious submissions and evidence constitutes technical misconduct. Hargrave J. 1st November 2006.

Birse Construction Ltd . St David Ltd [1999] EWHC TCC 253 Jurisdiction : Proof of existence of a contract, containing an arbitration agreement that gave rise to jurisdiction and right to a stay to arbitration. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 12th February 1999.

Birse Construction Ltd v St David Ltd [2000] Lawtel AC0100051 Jurisdiction : No contract concluded. Arbitration agreement not alive. No stay to arbitration. QBD.(TCC) Recorder Colin Reese QC. 17th August 2000.

BLCT (13096) Ltd. v J Sainsbury Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 884 S69 AA 1996 : Appeal against a refusal to appeal a refusal to appeal ; Human Rights. Grounds of application to appeal a refusal to grant an oral hearing of an appeal against a refusal to appeal : section 69(6) of the Arbitration Act 1996 is incompatible with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights because of its effect in entirely preventing in the circumstances such as have arisen in this case any consideration by the Court of Appeal of an application to appeal it. Held : “I do not accept the submission that it is a requirement of Article 6 that there should be an oral hearing unless there are exceptional circumstances in the case.” CA on appeal from Chancery (Mr Justice Pumfrey) : Appeal against a refusal to grant an oral hearing of a s69 application to appeal on a point of law. Compatibility with Human Rights Act : Held : Proportionate to the value : No breach – and CA then rejected the appeal itself. No real prospect of success. Arden LJ; Longmore LJ. 30th June 2003.

BMBF (No 12) Ltd v Harland & Wolff Shipbuilding & Heavy Industries Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 862 Contract interpretation : CA preferred the interpretation of a ship building contract over that of a judge and reinstated the arbitral award. Concepts of general interpretation based on commercial concepts should not override the understanding of chosen experts within the field. Potter LJ; Clarke LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. 8th June 2001.

BNP Paribas v Deloitte & Touche LLP [2003] EWHC 2874 (Comm) S43 AA 1996 : CPR Rule 34.4 Witness summons. Application to compel witnesses to give evidence at an arbitration and disclosure of documents. Question : Can the court compel a third party who is not a party to an arbitration to disclose documents? Held : A fishing exercise – outside the scope of s43. Application refused. Mr Justice Morison. 28th November 2003

Boots The Chemist Ltd v Westfield Shopping Towns Ltd [2003] NIQB 14 S69 AA 1996 : Interim award challenge. Was the issue one of general importance? Concerned form of lease common in a shopping precinct – held : not sufficiently of importance. Appeal application rejected. Further no serious doubt as to the correctness of the award. HHJ Coghlin. 13th February 2003.

Borgship Tankers Inc. v Product Transport Corporation Ltd. [2005] EWHC 273 (Comm) Time bar : extension of time s12. Cargo claims under a charterparty subject to the HVR are subject to a 1 year time bar. Claimants sought damages for wasted bunkers. The event arose out of dirty holds that required cleaning. Held : This was not a cargo claim. No bar. Mr Justice Cresswell. 28th February 2005

Bowden v. Logan [2000] NIQB 48 Challenge s68 : costs award. The arbitrator called a hearing to determine entitlement to costs. However, he then went ahead and ruled on quantum without the parties being invited to or given the opportunity to make any representations. Even though the arbitrator was in possession of much information that might justify the award, and whilst cost effective, none the less it was a serious irregularity not to give the parties the opportunity to be heard on the matter. Shiel J. 26th October 2000.

Braes of Doune Wind Farm Ltd v Alfred McaLpine Business Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 426 (TCC) S2 AA 1996 Seat of tribunal : s69 Challenge. Place of arbitration Glasgow : Arbitration Act 1996 and CIMAR Rules goverened the process : Where was the seat? Held : England and Wales. Liquidated damages clause under a Silver Book ICE contract held to be an unenforceable penalty by the arbitrator. Held : Not obviously wrong – and in the circumstances whilst a strange result – not wrong either – application to appeal refused. Mr Justice Akenhead. 13th March 2008

British Aviation Insurance Company Ltd, Re [2005] EWHC 1621 (Ch) Ouster clause. To what extent, if at all, is an ADR provision that states that the jurisdiction of the courts is ousted to the extent that the law permits, valid? Held : This is a valid scheme. Mr Justice Lewison. 21st July 2005.

Bulfracht (Cyprus) Ltd. v Boneset Shipping Company Ltd. "MV Pamphilos" [2002] EWHC 2292 (Comm) Failed s68 Challenge. Mr Justice Coleman. 7th November 2002.

Bulk Trading SA v Moeller [2006] EWCA Civ 1294 Costs of application to set aside : appeal. Unsuccessful appeal against an order refusing costs in respect of a successful application to set aside an award for absence of proper notice s72 : on grounds that whilst notice absent the applicants were largely responsible for the omission. Waller LJ. Longmore LJ. 14th September 2006.

Burford UK Properties Ltd & Ors v Forte Hotels (UK) Ltd & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1800 Reasons not relevant : Grounds for court decision. Party alleged that the mechanism for determining a dispute was set out in an arbitration clause. Court held that the arbitration terms were for establishing rent, and not relevant to an action for non-payment. Auld LJ; Chadwick LJ; Arden LJ. 17th December 2003.

C v D [2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm) Anti suit injunction to prevent challenge to an award. Mr Justice Cooke : 28th June 2007

Cable & Wireless Plc v IBM United Kingdom Ltd. [2002] EWHC 2059 (Comm) Stay to ADR. ADR agreement : Stay of action : Where the parties make an unequivocal agreement to mediate the court will issue either a stay of action or adjournment pending outcome of mediation. (See also [2003] EWHC 316 (Comm) per Mr Justice Langley). Mr Justice Colman. 11th October 2002.

Caltex Gas Co Ltd v National Petroleum Corporation [2001] EWCA Civ 788 Personality : Caltex commenced an arbitration against the respondents. The arbitrator found on basis of ad hoc appointments that they were not parties to arbitration agreements. The high court found that the arbitration settled the question of liability and that no appeal lay against it. Caltex successfully appealed the refusal to allow an appeal on the jurisdiction award. Trial to follow. Phillips LJ; Pill LJ; Keene LJ. 15th May 2001.

Cameroon Airlines v Transnet Ltd. [2004] EWHC 1829 (Comm) Natural Justice : Matter referred back to tribunal to give opportunity of parties to address the tribunal's approach - and to make a fresh determination. QBD. Mr Justice Langley. 29th July 2004.

Capital Trust Investment Ltd. v Radio Design AB [2002] EWCA Civ 135 Stay to arbitration : s9. Was appellant a party to the arbitration agreement? Had the respondent's taken a step in litigation preventing a stay. No. Stay to arbitration in Sweden upheld. Schiemann LJ; Clarke LJ; Arden LJ. 15th February 2002

Capital Trust Investment Ltd. v Radio Design AB [2002] EWCA Civ 135 S9 AA 1996 : Challenge to stay order. Was appellant a party to the arbitration agreement? Had the respondent\'s taken a step in litigation preventing a stay. No. Stay to arbitration in Sweden upheld. Schiemann LJ; Clarke LJ; Arden LJ. 15th February 2002.

Carter (Michael Carter Partnership) v. Harold Simpson Associates Ltd (Jamaica) [2004] UKPC 29 Payment directions Fees - allocation. Court enforcing an award had problems with the payment directions – viz how much due from a Joint Venture and how much due from an individual. Had an impact upon mechanism of the arbitrator for recovery of his costs & fees. Distinction between joint and several liability and the power to award costs unless the parties otherwise agreed in the submission documents. Lords Hope ; Scott; Rodger; Dame Sian Elias. 14th June 2004.

Carvill America Incorporated v Camperdown UK Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 645 Stay to arbitration s9. Arbitration provisions between A & B do not prevent C who is not a party to the arbitration agreement from maintaining court action and enjoining A & B. Stay refused. Ward LJ; Clarke LJ; Longmore LJ. 27th May 2005.

Catlin Estates Ltd v Carter Jonas (a firm) [2005] EWHC 2315 (TCC) Third Party rights. Had property been sold to Mr Catlin by CEL and if so did builder owe a tortious duty of care for defective premises arising out of breach of contract ? Held : CEL still owner. HHJ John Toulmin. TCC. 31st October 2005.

Cegelec Projects Ltd v. Pirelli Construction Company Ltd [1998] EWHC TCC 319 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. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 21st May 1998.

Celtic Resources Holdings v Arduina Holding BV [2006] EWHC 2553 (Comm) Freezing injunction. A lodged an appeal against an arbitral award after it had been the subject of an enforcement action. A freezing order to prevent dissipation of funds was granted : application to extend refused – failure to demonstrate a real possibility of dissipation. Appeals under s67-69 pending. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 11th September 2006.

Cetelem SA v Roust Holdings Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 618 Challenge s44 freezing order. Unsuccessful challenge to a freezing order. Test – necessity to preserve assets. Vice Chancellor; Clarke LJ; Neuberger LJ. 24th May 2005

CGU International Insurance Plc v Astrazeneca Insurance Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 2755 (Comm) Challenge : s69. Conflicts of Law : UK or US : Reinsurance dispute. Mr Justice Cresswell. 1st December 2005

CGU International Insurance Plc v Astrazeneca Insurance Co Ltd. [2006] EWCA Civ 1340 Challenge s69(8). Residual grounds to consider an appeal : North Range Shipping Ltd v. Seatrans Shipping Corporation [2002] EWCA Civ 405 : considered but distinguished on facts. Sir Anthony Clarke MR,Rix LJ. Longmore LJ. 16th October 2006.

Channel Tunnel Group Ltd v S.S. For Environment, Transport & Regions [2001] EWCA Civ 1185 A jurisdiction clause does not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts unless the parties submit the dispute to arbitration which had not occurred in this case. Peter Gibson LJ; Laws LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. 23rd July 2001.

Chattan Developments Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd [2007] EWHC 305 (TCC) Extension of time to appeal. The court granted an extension of time to appeal on condition that costs were paid by the applicant. Due to banking problems the ready availability of the funds was in question and the respondent asked court to determine that accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Court held, in the circumstances the condition had been fulfilled and even if it had not been due to a technicality the overriding purpose of the CPR of serving justice would have justified a further extension. Mr Justice Ramsey. 15th February 2007.

Chattan Developments Ltd v Reigill Civil Engineering Contractors Ltd [2007] EWHC 306 (TCC) Challenge s69. Question of law regarding a preliminary determination. Failed appeal. Mr Justice Ramsey. 15th February 2007.

Checkpoint Ltd. v Strathclyde Pension Fund [2003] EWCA Civ 84 s68 Challenge : Ward LJ; Mummery LJ; Jonathan Parker LJ. 6th February 2003.

China Agribusiness development Corp v Balli Trading (1997) Lawtel AC7100112 New York Award : Enforcement action. Arbitration rules changed - but agreement was to use the rules or successor rules. No reason to refuse enforcement of CIETAC. Longmore J. 20th January 1997

China National Petroleum Corp v Fenwick Elliott Techint International Construction Co [2002] EWHC 60 (Ch) CPR Rule 24.2, Strike out application. Confidentiality : attempts to gain delivery up of documents and orders of non-disclosure. Parties involved in arbitration about responsibility for delays in contract dealing which had made an order for disclosure of documents. Held that documents being sought were privileged and orders refused. Vice-Chancellor. 31st January 2002.

City & General (Holborn) Ltd. v AYH Plc [2005] EWHC 2494 (TCC) Appointment of arbitrator s18 : Court appointed arbitrator. Mr Justice Jackson : 29th September 2005.

City of London v Sancheti [2008] EWCA Civ 1283 s9 AA 1996 : Stay to arbitration : ICSID : This application concerns the relationship between international arbitration under a BIT and national court proceedings, and, in particular, whether Roussel-Uclaf v GD Searle & Co Ltd [1978] 1 Lloyd\'s Rep 225 was right to give a very extensive interpretation of the stay provisions of what is now section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 so to apply it to persons who were not parties to the arbitration agreement. Held : The UK not London party to the arbitration. Stay refused. Laws LJ; Richards LJ; Lawrence Collins LJ. 21st November 2008

Claire & Co. Ltd. v Thames Water Utilities Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1022 Bias : Challenge to arbitrator's award on gounds of breach of s33 AA 1996 duty of impartiality. Mr Justice Jackson. 19th April 2005.

CMA CGM S.A. v Beteiligungs-Kommanditgesellschaft MS Northern Pioneer [2002] EWCA Civ 1878 Challenge s69 : Governing principles to appeal. Lord Phillips MR; Rix LJ; Dyson LJ. 18th December 2002

CMA CGM S.A. v Classica Shipping Company Ltd. [2003] EWHC 641 (Comm) S69 AA 1996 : point of law : Limitation CLC. Is a charterer entitled to limitation of liability in an action by an owner, pursuant to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 No. Charter only entitled to limitation when acting qua owner. Charterers appealed award on the basis of a right to limit liability under the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims., Appeal failed and The Aegean Sea [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep.39 applied. Mr Justice David Steel. 27th March 2003.

CMA CGM SA v Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co Ltd [2008] EWHC 2791 (Comm) Novation : arbitration clause : whether tribunal governed by French judgement : CMA commenced a tort action in France against HMD for unreasonably refusing to novate a contract. Following late novation - whether the arbitration clause in the contract required the French action to be terminated. Held : Yes. Whether the judgements regulations apply to tribunals or only to court. Held : Only to courts. Note - tort action not sustainable under english Law. Mr Justice Burton. 14th November 2008.

Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd v Stansell Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 538 Challenge s69 point of law. Challenge to the interpretation of s51(1) Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 upheld. Mummery LJ; Longmore LJ; Jacob LJ. 9th May 2006.

Coal Authority v Davidson [2008] EWHC 2180 (TCC) s69 Arbitration Act 1996 : Statutory arbitrationArbitrator erred in ordering the coal authority to purchase two properties suffering blight due to subsidence in adjoining properties. The court held that the statutory regime only allowed for compensation for subsidence damage and potential subsidence in the future. The respondents had already received compensation and remedial works for subsidence : the mining activities were at an end and no futher subsidence anticipated. The Act does not allow compensation for blight and pure economic loss.Mr Justice Coulson : TCC. 9th September 2008.

Coal Authority v Trustees of the Nostell Trust [2005] EWHC 154 Failed appeal against arbitral award. HHJ Peter Coulson. 28th January 2005

Cohort Constructions Co (UK) Ltd v. Spring Hotels Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 1415 Application for security of costs - re arbitration : Appeal : Claim & Counterclaim : CA : Evans LJ : Hobhouse LJ : Hutchinson LJ :16th April 1997

Colliers International Property Consultants v Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar Sdn Bhd [2008] EWHC 1524 (Comm) Set aside application of a s66 AA 1996 Order that an ICC award be made into a judgment of the court in the terms of the award. Allegations regarding personality - service etc. Set aside refused. Mr Justice Beatson. 3rd July 2008.

Contigroup Companies Inc v Glencore AG [2004] EWHC 2750 (Comm) Settlement – liability : Compromise. A claimed off B the sums it settled with C arising our of B’s default. A compromised an arbitration with C. Question – was the settlement valid and a legal loss arising out of B’s actions. Held : In the circumstances YES – if it had gone to arbitration the loss would have probably been even greater. Mr Ian Glick QC. 25th November 2004.

Continental Enterprises Ltd. v Shandong Zhucheng Foreign Trade Group Co [2005] EWHC 92 (Comm) Challenge s67 Jurisdiction. Separability : Whilst an arbitration agreement can survive the invalidity of the main agreement for incapacity, in this case the rules provided that an arbitration agreement tainted by incapacity would be invalid. GAFTA was correct in concluding that the tribunal had no jurisdiction. Mr Justice David Steel. 2nd February 2005.

Covington Marine Corp v Xiamen Shipbuilding Industry Co Ltd [2005] EWHC 2912 (Comm) Challenge : s69. Existence of agreement is a mixed question of fact or law that can be corrected by the court if incorrectly determined by the tribunal. MR JUSTICE LANGLEY
Commercial Court. 16th December 2005.

CR Sugar Trading Ltd v China National Sugar & Alcohol Group Corp [2003] EWHC 79 (Comm) S69 AA 1996 : Point of Law : Challenge - amendment. In event of appeal failing, strike out application pursuant to s5 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Decision of the tribunal, upheld by the court, was that the underlying contract was unenforceable by virtue of the FSA. Claim failed. Commercial sale of raw sugar subject to letters of credit. Challenged a determination by the tribunal that both parties were traders and not users. Mr Justice David Steel. 31st January 2003.

Crest Nicholson (Eastern) Ltd v Western [2008] EWHC 1325 (TCC) Jurisdiction - home build contracts : Is the owner/purchasor a party to the NHBC arbitration provision. Held : no. - this is onoy between NHBC & the builder. RICS appointed arbitrator invalidly appointed. The costs of arbitral proceedings not recoverable. Mr Justice Akenhead. 16th June 2008.

Crown Resources Ag v Sumitomo Corporation (Singapore) [2004] EWHC 1670 (Comm) Costs : Wasted costs order. Solicitors challenged a paper only wasted costs order – apparently on the instructions of the client for costs pursuant to a failed arbitration. The director ostensibly giving those instructions no longer had authority since the client had filed for bankruptcy in Switzerland. By the time of the hearing that replaced the written order it became clear the client had been declared bankrupt. Solicitor held liable for a wasted costs order. Should have clarified instructions with the client at which stage the bankruptcy application would have been discovered. Mr Justice Morison. 13th July 2004.

Cuflet Chartering v Carousel Shipping Co Ltd [2000] EWHC 200 (Comm) Challenge s68 Serious irregularity. Assertion that owners had agreed not to press ahead to an arbitral award (ie temporary suspension of process) pending negotiations. Arbitrator went ahead and delivered the award. Was it procured by devious means? On the fact, it was clear that the charterers were aware that he would go ahead. There was in any case little scope or confidence in negotiations since the owners had arrested the charterers vessel as security and were unwilling to release it. Award upheld. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 21st December 2000.

CWS Engineering Group v Birse Construction Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2062 Construction arbitrations : Main & sub contracts in JCT form: First arbitration between employer & contractor : but employer played no part - running made by sub-contractor : Found no fault on contractor or sub-contrator & monies due to both : Employer went into liquidation ; Subcontractor successfully enforced payment from contractor. AA 1979. Nourse LJ; Roche LJ; Phillips LJ; 9th July 1997.

Czech Republic v European Media Ventures SA [2007] EWHC 2851 (Comm) S67 AA 1996 challenge : Failed challenge to the jurisdictional award of the tribunal.Mr Justice Simon. 5th December 2007

Dadourian Group Int Inc v Simms [2006] EWCA Civ 399 World Wide Freezing Order. CA laid down Guidelines to be known as the Dadourian Guidelines for the granting of a WWF or Worldwide Mareva Injunction. CA. Ward LJ; Arden LJ; Moore-Bick LJ. 11th April 2006.

Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2008] EWHC 1784 (Ch) Legal privilege : litigation privilege. Mr Justice Patten. 25th July 2008

Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan [2008] EWHC 1901 (Comm) Appeal on s103(2)(b) grounds – that the arbitration agreement was not lawful in the state where the contract was carried out - against leave to enforce an ICC arbitration award pursuant to s101. Rather than contract in its own name the government of Pakistan created a Trust to contract on its behalf – but subsequently revoked the trust be not passing the necessary legislation. The tribunal had invoked concepts of “transnational arbitration law” to extend the liabilities under the contract to Pakistan. Here the court applied the procedural law of the tribunal seat – France – to the question of legality and contractual personality – concluded that the French Court would have had regard to the law of Pakistan and since under that law there was no contractual nexus and the arbitration clause did not lawfully bind the state in the absence of the signature of the President – the award was not binding or enforceable. Mr Justice Ailens. 1st August 2008

Danae Air Transport Societie Anonyme v Air Canada [1999] EWCA Civ 2011 Slip rule s22 / 24 AA 1950. on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Longmore) : Held : where the arbitrator’s had made an arithmetical error in the course of a costs award, the court could remit the award back to the tribunal for correction. Kennedy LJ; Ward LJ; Tuckey LJ. 29th July 1999.

David Wilson Homes Ltd v Survey Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 34 Arbitration clause : interpretation : "Any dispute to be referred to a QC" is an arbitration clause : Obvious QC to determine the dispute not merely act as an expert.Simon Brown LJ; Longmore LJ. 18th January 2001.

Davies Middleton v Toyo Engineering Corp [1997] EWCA Civ 2318 Stay to arbitration : Good faith clause : Jurisdiction of court to determine whether ADR exhausted and dispute now subject to arbitration : CA stayed action to arbitration. Simon Brown LJ; Phillips LJ. 29th August, 1997

Davis Contractors v Fareham Urban DC [1956] UKHL 3 Arbitration : Case stated : did the unavailability of labour and material resulting in an overrun of 23 weeks in a construction contract strike at the heart of the contract, displacing it and making the employer liable on a quantum meruit basis for services? Held : No : Result : contract breached by late performance. Viscount Simonds: Lords Morton; Reid ; Radcliffe; Somervell. 19th April 1956

DDT Trucks of North America Ltd v DDT Holdings Ltd [2007] EWHC 1542 (Comm) Application for enforcement of a costs award - s66. Mr Justice Cooke : 29th June 2007

Delos, owners of cargo v Delos Shipping Ltd [2001] EWHC 486 (Comm) Stay s9 AA 1996. Incorporation of arbitration clause into bills of lading and whether scope extended to tort and bailment. The terms “all disputes whatsoever” was wide enough to encompass tort and bailment. Stay granted. Mr Justice Langley. 31st January 2001.

Delta Civil Engineering Co Ltd v London Docklands Development Corporation [1996] EWCA Civ 698 Enforcement s26 AA 1950 : jurisdiction. on appeal from QBD (in the matter of the Arbitration Acts 1950-1979 and in the matter of an arbitration) : Arbitrator awarded costs of a settlement process and costs of settlement award. Issued : did he have jurisdiction? YES. Staughton LJ; Swinton Thomas LJ. 11th October 1996.

Demco Investments SA v SE Banken Forsakring Holding Aktiebolag [2005] EWHC 1398 (Comm) Challenge : s69 : There can be no appeal of facts under s69 - only an appeal of law. Mr Justice Cooke. Commercial Court. 30th June 2005.

Department of Civil Aviation of the Kyrgyz Republic v Finrep GmbH [2006] EWHC 1722 Challenge s67 : Jurisdiction. Challenge to preliminary award on jurisdiction : Challenges to the identity of the respondents viz the Civil Aviation Authority and to whether the state was a party to arbitration. Fact of case not disclosed to respect privacy of the parties. Mr JusticeTomlinson. 22nd May 2006.

Dept Economics Policy & Development City of Moscow v Bankers Trust Co [2003] EWHC 1377 (Comm) Privacy of award & judgements. Whether or not the court would enforce the privacy elements of an arbitration agreement – and extent to which any litigation on the award private : regarding a failed s69 application : held – prior judgement withheld from publication. Mr Justice Cooke. 5th June 2003.

Dept. Economic Policy & Dev. City of Moscow v Bankers Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 314 Privacy - party autonomy and public poicy : An appeal against an arbitration failed : The successful party wished the judgement to be published to demonstrate their business credentials to the world : The losing party wished to maintain privacy. C.A. upheld the privacy principal central to private dispute resolution. VC. Carnwarth LJ. Mance LJ. 25th March 2004.

Deutsche Bank AG v Asia Pacific Broadband Wireless Communications Inc [2008] EWHC 918 (Comm) Arbitration & jurisdiction clauses : Validity. Assuming there was no authority to contract or to agree arbitration and jurisdiction provisions, could arbitration be invoked in respected of amended alternative claims to breach of contract. Held : There is no severability of jurisdiction clause : validity of arbitration clause to be considered separately - but whilst an arguable case, case not established. Mr Justice Flaux. 30th April 2008

Donohue v Armco Inc. [2000] EWCA Civ 94 Anti Suit Injunction. Appeal from a judgment of Aikens J. whereby he dismissed the Claimant\'s application for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the Defendants\' from suing him in any forum other than England. Stuart-Smith LJ. Brooke LJ ; Sedley LJ. 29th March 2000.

Donohue v. Armco Inc [2001] UKHL 64 Anti Suit injunction. Whether an injunction should have been granted to restrain the prosecution of proceedings in New York and, if so, in whose favour it should have been granted. Lords Bingham ; Mackay ; Nicholls ; Hobhouse ; Scott Lord. 13th December 2001.

Downing v Al Tameer Establishment & Anor [2002] EWCA Civ 721 Stay of action to arbitration : s9 : Disputes as to whether there was a valid arbitration agreement : Held : Arbitrator has initial jurisdiction over jurisdiction. Choice of substantive law not indicative of procedural law. Potter LJ; Keene LJ; Mr Justice Sumner. 22nd May 2002.

Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1834 Contributions : arbitral award. Appeal. Whether following an arbitral award between assured and underwriter there was a right of contribution : could the underwriter distance himself from the award? Other insurer not a party to the award. Pill LJ; Clarke LJ; Rix LJ. 17th December 2003.

Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1834 S69 AA 1996. Insurance : Was Provident\'s right to avoid a policy limited by the doctrine of good faith? Whether right subject to waiver and estoppel. Court held that arbitrator was wrong to conclude that the underwriter had a right to avoid for non-disclosure. Pill LJ. Clarke LJ .Rix LJ. 17th December 2003.

Drake Insurance Plc v Provident Insurance Plc [2003] EWHC 109 (Comm) Contributions : arbitral award. Whether following an arbitral award between assured and underwriter there was a right of contribution : could the underwriter distance himself from the award? Other insurer not a party to the award. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 3rd February 2003.

Dredging & Construction Co Ltd v Delta Civil Eng [1999)] QBD TCC 196 LAWTEL. Jurisdiction of arbitrator to continue to rule on jurisdisction once he had made an interim ruling on jurisdiction - functus officio. HHJ David Wilcox. Official Referee.

Durham County Council v Darlington Borough Council [2003] EWHC 2598 (Admin) S69 : AA 1996. Statutory arbitration. Local Government Changes for England (Property Transfer and Transitional Payments) Regulations 1995. Statutory Arbitrator ordered premature interest payments : Interest could only run from date of award. Mr Justice Stanley Burnton. 6th November 2003.

Econet Satellite Services Ltd. v Vee Networks Ltd [2006] EWHC 1664 (Comm) Challenge s67 Jurisdiction.No jurisdiction to deal with set off under the contract : Applicants confused the scope clause under UNCITRAL re procedure with the substantive law of the contract. Comercial Court. Mr Justice Field. 13th July 2006.

Econet Wireless Ltd v Vee Networks Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 1568 (Comm) Injunction s44 lifted. Ex parte injunction in support of overseas arbitration lifted. Other party had no notice. Court provided with insufficient information at first instance. It is only in extra-ordinary situations that a court will injunct in respect of overseas arbitral proceedings. Nigeria was the appropriate forum of the arbitration. Mr Justice Morison. 28th June 2006.

Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Co [2005] EWHC 774 (Comm) Challenge s67 jurisdiction – sovereign immunity Justiciability : Tax. Arbitration challenge s67 met by a sovereign state immunity plea by the defendant asserting the award was a treaty. Court held it had jurisdiction – sovereign had submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator.. Whether questions as to tax involving a state party justiciable – by arbitration or the court. Mr Justice Aikens. 29th April 2005.

Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Co [2006] EWHC 345 (Comm) Challenge s67 : s68. Jurisdiction to deal with taxation excluded. Did this extend to application for return of VAT. Held No. Mr. Justice Aikens. 2nd March 2006.

Ecuador v Occidental Exploration & Production Co [2007] EWCA Civ 656 Challenge s67 : Jurisdiction. Failed appeal against decision of first instance court upholding the award & jurisdiction. Sir Anthony Clarke MR; Buxton LJ; Toulson LJ. 4th July 2007

ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Lendoudis [2007] EWHC 2268 (Comm) S026 AA 1950 : limitation. Successful appeal against order enforcing foreign award. Action more than 6 years after the award issued. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 10th October 2007

El Nasharty v J. Sainsbury Plc [2007] EWHC 2618 (Comm) S9 AA 1996 : Application for a declaration that an agreement for sale of shares in Egyptian Distribution Group SAE was entered into as a result of duress and has been avoided. In his Points of Claim he additionally claims damages of at least US$104,000,000. The agreement contained an arbitration clause, pursuant to which Sainsbury make this application. Stay granted.Mr Justice Tomlinson. 13th November 2007

Electrosteel Castings Ltd. v Scan-Trans Shipping & Chartering SDN BHD [2002] EWHC 1993 A Court challenge, under s.67 Arbitration Act 1996, to an arbitrator's ruling as to his own jurisdiction should involve a re-hearing rather than simply a review. Mr Justice Gross. Commercial Court.9th October 2002.

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors [2007] EWHC 571 (Comm) Injunction s37 SCA 1981 restraining arbitration. Party participated for 10 months in an on going arbitration in London – reserving its position on jurisdiction pending the outcome of an arbitration in Geneva. Application refused. Mr Justice Aikens. 20th March 2007.

Elektrim SA v Vivendi Universal SA [2007] EWHC 11 (Comm) Challenge s68. Fraud for the purposes of s68 should be committed by the other party of with privity of that party – not by a third party – even if the other party aware of it. Mr Justice Aikens. 24th January 2007.

Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 184 Confidentiality : privacy : piercing the veil : interests of justice. Whilst it is clearly established under English law that the arbitration process is both private and confidential, there are exceptions to the rule : a beneficiary might waive the protection – particularly when challenging or enforcing a award – and the courts can override the privilege in the interests of justice – to allow arbitral proceedings to be disclosed to a domestic or forieng court. Carnwath LJ; Thomas LJ; Lawrence Collins LJ. 12th March 2008

Energy Brix Australia Corp P/L v National Logistics Coordinators (Morwell) P/L [2002] VSCA 113 Whether jurisdiction to hear appeal from order refusing leave to appeal from decision of arbitrator - Whether manifest error on face of award - Whether judge obliged to state reasons for refusing application - Contract - Absence of rule that contract under seal has \"precedence\" over later signed agreement not under seal - Commercial Arbitration Act 1984 s.38. Winneke, P.; Ormiston, Phillips, Buchanan, Vincent JJ.A. 8th August 2002

Enron (Thrace) Exploration and Production BV v Clapp [2004] EWHC 1612 (Comm) Stay to arbitration s9 anti-suit. Arguable defence to part of an enforcement judgment : other part no defence. Enforcement in part ordered. Any dispute on quantum re outstanding sum to be settled if at all at either parties behest by arbitration. Anti-suit injunction against commencing action in Texas court since arbitration / exclusive jurisdiction & law clause effective. Mr Justice Langley. 20th July 2004.

Entico Corp Ltd v UNESCO [2008] EWHC 531 (Comm) Immunity - UN: arbitration agreement. Whether the immunity from suit of the UN precluded arbitral jurisdiction in a contract for the production of a calendar. UN pulled out of contract – claimant seeks damages for loss. Mr Justice Tomlinson : 18th March 2008

Equatorial Traders Ltd. v Louis Dreyfus Trading Ltd.[2002] EWHC 2023 (Comm) S67 AA 1996 : set aside application : s68 & 79 applications. Regarding an award Dreyfus challenge quantum – and seek s79 extension of time to validate service of statement of claim – since the person responsible had been ill – and under the contract the statement was served a month too late. There followed an application for a fresh appeal – which gave rise to the s67 application, Held : Extension of time not allowed. HHJ Chambers QC. 28th August 2002.

Equitas Ltd v Allstate Insurance Company [2008] EWHC 1671 (Comm) Stay pending outcome of third party Texas arbitration between Allstate v Highland regarding reinsurance : Held : Stay refused : danger that the tribunal might rule against Equitas\'s interests - in an action that Equitas was not a party - and potential difficulties as to the enforceability of such an award. Mr Justice Beatson. 17th July 2008

Essex County Council v Premier Recycling Ltd [2006] EWHC 3594 (TCC) Challenge : s69. Appeal failed. Mr. Justice Ramsey : TCC. 9th March 2006.


Esso Exploration & Production UK Ltd. v Electricity Supply Board [2004] EWHC 723 (Comm) Jurisdiction s32. Arbitration to adjust the price of gas in a long term contract. Trigger for a notice is to demonstrate that the price is 85% or less below the market price., and that 90 days had passed since failure to negotiate a revised price. ESB complained that the comparator used by Esso was based on annual market price rather than on the market price of comparable long term contracts. Court agreed with ESB. No jurisdiction. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 31st March 2004.

ET Plus SA v Welter [2005] EWHC 2115 (Comm) Stay to arbitration s9. Whilst Et Plus & Channel tunnel were subject to a Paris Arbitration agreement others including the respondent to this application were not, accordingly the stay to Paris rejected. Certain of the actions filed were dismissed out of hand. There remaining actions were stayed pending the outcome of the Paris arbitration. Mr Justice Gross. 7th November 2005.

Exfin Shipping (India) Ltd v Tolani Shipping Co Ltd [2006] EWHC 1090 (Comm) Challenge s67 Jurisdiction. Meaning of and existence of a dispute. The Halki applied. Challenge failed. Mr Justice Langley. 17th May 2006.

Fearn v Swindon Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 393 Agricultural Act Arbitration. County Court judge set award aside for error of law on face of record : Incorrect interpretation of contract and failure to consider submissions. Appeal dismissed : Little likelihood of establishing the judge was incorrect. Chadwick LJ; Arden LJ. 8th March 2001.

Fidelity Management SA v Myriad International Holdings BV [2005] EWHC 1193 (Comm ) Challenge : s68(2)d : Test serious irregularity causing substantial injustice : Not established in the instant case. Morison Mr Justice. Commercial Court. 9th June 2005.

Fifield v. W. R Jack Limited (New Zealand) [2000] UKPC 27 Extension of time s27 AA 1950. Appeal against a refusal of an extension of time to submit a dispute to arbitration. Lords Browne-Wilkinson; Cooke; Clyde; Hobhouse; Mr. Justice Henry. 29th June 2000.

Film Finance Inc v The Royal Bank of Scotland [2007] EWHC 195 (Comm) Jurisdiction – s32 application. Scope of arbitration clause : Held : Arbitrator has jurisdiction over the dispute. Liberal approach to interpretation in favour of one stop arbitration appropriate. Fiona v Privalov noted. Mr. Justice Andrew Smith. 14th February 2007.

Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2006] EWHC 2583 (Comm) Stay to arbitration. Application to stay to arbitration refused. Mr Justice Morrison. 20th October 2006.

Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Yuri Privalov [2007] EWCA Civ 20 Who has jurisdiction to determine whether or not allegations of bribery and corruption in the formation of a contract containing an arbitration clause are founded : tribunal or court? Held : tribunal - the court only has jurisdiction if the allegations relate to the legality of the arbitration agreement : questions regarding the validity of the main agreement are for the tribunal. Tuckey LJ; Arden LJ; Longmore LJ. 24th January 2007.

Fleming & Wendeln GmbH & Co v Sanofi Sa/ag [2003] EWHC 561 (Comm) S69 AA 1996 : Appeal against revised Gafta award : s67 jurisdiction. GAFTA appeals tribunal : Appeal - clause 28 of GAFTA form 78, the buyer having held the seller in default and terminated the contract, the buyer is entitled to damages assessed as the difference between the contract price and the market price of the cargo at the end of the delivery period. Board correct to determine that breach occurred at an earlier date and clause 28 not applicable. A s67 Jurisdiction challenge where point referred back to GAFTA by the court failed. Market price and due date for assessment of market price in an international trade claim. Was the date of failure to nominate a silo the date to assess market value – dealt with under s67 – jurisdiction of Gafta appeals board. Held : remission a term of the contract : no excess of jurisdiction : it was a determination the board was entitled to reach. Mr Justice Cresswell. 20th March 2003.

Flood v Shand Construction Ltd [1996] EWCA Civ 1241 Assignment : Scope of a clause prohibiting the sub-contractor from assigning the benefit of the sub-contract which appears in a widely-used standard form. Held : clause 2(3) of the sub-contract renders invalid the assignment by the company plaintiff of any claim which cannot be expressed simply as a present or future claim for a fixed amount due under the sub-contract. This precludes the assignment of claims for damages or for sums which fall to be assessed under or in accordance with the sub-contract terms, except where the assignment transfers only the future right to recover the amount when it is duly established by agreement or otherwise. Butler-Sloss LJ; Evans LJ; Sir Iain Glidewell. 18th December 1996

Front Carriers Ltd.v Atlantic and Orient Shipping Corp. [2007] EWHC 421 (Comm) Application s32(2)(b) jurisdiction. Application for declaration that a contract – charterparty - containing an arbitration clause had been concluded for between the parties. Application granted. Clerical error in Charter Party naming company Lti instead of Ltd not significant.Court confirmed that there was a valid contract which in turn contained an arbitration clause. Mr Justice Langley. 8th March 2007.

Gabriel v Hayward [2004] EWHC 2363 Application for amendment of statement of claim from 16 to 63 pages. Approved. HHJ Richard Havery. 22nd October 2004

Galaxy Special Maritime Enterprise v Prima Ceylon Ltd MV \"Olympic Galaxy\" [2006] EWCA Civ 528 Jurisdiction - conflicts. General average claim : By a letter of undertaking parties agreed to settle disputes either by arbitration or before the High Court Sri Lanka. It is clear the applicable substantive law is English Law. Parties submitted to but then abandoned an arbitration. CA held that in the circumstances there is no overriding reason for an English Court to deal with events that took place in Sri Lankan waters, particularly since the Sri Lankan court was already dealing with the matter. Mummery LJ; Buxton LJ. Longmore LJ. 3rd May 2006.

Gannet Shipping Ltd v Eastrade Commodities Inc [2001] EWHC 483 (Comm) Slip rule s57 : s67 / 68 challenges. Correction of error : did the tribunal have jurisdiction to correct an error – and if so was there a serious irregularity. Challenges failed. Mr Justice Langley. 6th December 2001.

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2007] EWCA Civ 988 S103 AA 1996 Challenge to enforcement of award : security. Court has jurisdiction to deal with security of costs in respect of enforcement or defence of a New York award. Buxton LJ; Rix LJ; Moses LJ. 17th October 2007

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2007] EWHC 697 (Comm) Application for security of costs against a defendant to an application to set aside a New York Convention enforcement award. Mr Justice Field. 22nd March 2007

Gater Assets Ltd v NAK Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2008] EWHC 1108 (Comm) s101(3) AA 1996 : Can interest purusant o s17 Judgments Act 1838 be ordered against an enforcement order where no interest ordered by the tribunal? Held : Yes. Mr Justice Beatson. 21st May 2008

Gater Assets Ltd v Nak Naftogaz Ukrainiy [2008] EWHC 237 (Comm) S103 AA 1996 Challenge to enforcement of award. Appeal against an enforcement order on grounds of public policy – based on absence of full and frank disclosure. Court concluded that if material now available had been put to the tribunal the outcome would have been different. The court concluded that it would not have altered the outcome and hence the award stands. Mr Justice Tomlinson. 15th February 2008

Gatwick Express, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee [2003] EWHC 2035 (Admin) Jurisdiction : CAC. Whether the CAC had jurisdiction to order recognition where 8 out of 20 members were opposed or whether a ballot should be conducted. Held : A ballot required. Neither the Union or the Employer were concerned but the CAC wanted the matter remitted to them to reconsider in the light of the court’s determination. Court went ahead and made the decision itself, stating that the CAC request was too formal and unnecessary in the circumstances. HHJ. Wilkie. 11th August 2003.

General Construction Ltd v Aegon Insurance Co (UK) Ltd [1997] EWHC TCC 368 Due Process : Conflicts & Procedure : Was a paper only arbitration procedure satisfactory under the Law of Mauritius ? YES : HHJ Bowsher. 21st May, 1997

George Wimpey UK Ltd. v Granby Village (Manchester) Management Co Ltd. [2002] EWHC 2913 (TCC) S67 AA 1996. : application to vary an award. Defects arbitration clause between constructor and owners & subsequent owners of flats. The flats were managed by the Company which acquired the freehold of the land. Was the Company a successor in title entitled to arbitrate claims regarding defective underground parking? Held : No : interim jurisdiction award set aside. HHJ Frances Kirkham. 14th August 2002.

Gibson Joint Venture v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland [2001] NIQB 48 Extension of time s12 AA 1996. Dispute regarding an ICC 5th edition contract. Failure to demonstrate that the conditions under s12(3)(a) or (b) had been satisfied – viz outside reasonable contemplation of the parties & unjust or conduct of a party made it unfair, application failed. Shiel J. 21st December 2001.

Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd v Department of Health [2007] EWHC 1470 (Comm) Challenge s69 on a point of law : Successful. Mr Justice Cooke : 21st June 2007.

Glencore Grain Ltd v Agros Trading Company [1999] EWCA Civ 1731 Enforcement s26 AA 1950 : set off. Both parties were in possession of GAFTA awards against each other. However Glencore also sought o establish a set off against the award against them. Held on appeal that this sum had to be taken into account in the set off accounting process. Kennedy LJ; Otton LJ; Clarke LJ. 1st July 1999

Glidepath BV v Thompson [2005] EWHC 818 (Comm) Privacy : s9 Application for stay : Only information required regaring application to be made public. Colman.J. Commercial Court. 4th May 2005.

Glidepath Holdings BV v Early Red Corporation [2005] EWCA Civ 525 Stay to arbitration s9 and withdrawal of freezing order : Costs. Unsuccessful defendant to an action for stay to arbitration and withdrawal of freezing order appealed costs on basis that the day before the hearing they had conceded the stay. However this was not drawn to attention of court and argument adduced resisting the stay. Appeal failed. VC. Clarke LJ; Neuberger LJ. 19th April 2005.

Glocom Ltd v Eagle Star Reinsurance Co Ltd [1996] EWCA Civ 659 Conflicts : Insurance : Inter-relationship between Open Cover policy (subject to Dutch Law) and the certificate issued pursuant to and in compliance with a cif sales contract requiring equivalent minimum GAFTA provisions – including English Law. Held : The English jurisdiction clause prevailed. Phillips LJ; Mummery LJ. 4th October 1996.

Gold Coast Ltd. v Naval Gijon SA [2006] EWHC 1044 (Comm) Extension of time to correct error s79 & s57. Tribunal admitted an award contained an error but held that since the 21 day period under s57 had passed it was an issue for the court to deal with. Successful application under s79 to apply retrospectively for extension of time, thereby enabling the tribunal to correct the error.Mrs Justice Gloster. 15th April 2006.

Goldstein v Conley [2001] EWCA Civ 637 Costs : AA 1996. CA on appeal from QBD (The Hon Mr Justice Gray) and on appeal from the Lands Tribunal (HHJ Rich QC) . Costs for Lands Tribunal proceedings governed by the Arbitration Act 1996. Inter-relationship with CPR regarding costs of enforcement & challenge actions before the courts. Mantell LJ; Clarke LJ; Sir Anthony Evans. 4th May 2001.

Good Challenger Navegante S.A. v Metalexportimport S.A. [2003] EWCA Civ 1668 Limitation. Pre-CPR application for enforcement of an enforcement order in respect of an arbitration award. Whilst the enforcement would in ordinary circumstances be time barred there had been acknowledgements which extended time. This dispute could not arise again under the CPR rules for enforcement and the one month time bar. Mantell LJ; Clarke LJ; Mr Justice Rimer. 24th November 2003.

Good Challenger Navegante S.A. v Metalexportimport S.A. [2003] EWHC 10 (Comm) Enforcement s23 Arbitration Act 1950. Ex parte enforcement judgment entered on the 25th January 1993. Application here for final enforcement. Defendant sought set aside – limitation. Court ordered enforcement. During the interim period the claimants had continuously been engaged in enforcement proceedings outside the UK. No want of prosecution. Mr Michael Crane QC. 10th January 2003.

Gort-Barten v M A Cherrington Ltd [2006] EWHC 2877 (TCC) Costs of Appeal : Where parties reach an agreement as to costs of an arbitration, that agreement will extend to costs of appeal. Thus where agreement that each party bear its arbitration costs is concluded, the winning party to an appeal cannot recover costs of the appeal. Mr Justice Ramsay. TCC. 8th November 2006.

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd v ROP Inc [2006] EWHC 1730 (Comm) Anti-suit injunction. Injunction successfully applied for to prevent party pursuing an action to strike out arbitration proceedings before the Georgia Court. Commercial Court. Mr Jutice Morison. 12th July 2006

Guaranteed Ashphalt Ltd v. Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [1998] EWHC TCC 317 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.” HHJ Thornton QC. 5th June 1998.

Gurney v Pearson Pension Property Fund [2004] EWHC 1961 Existence of a construction contract a pre-requisite of arbitral jurisdiction. HHJ Richard Seymour. 2nd September 2004

Gus Consulting GmbH v Leboeuf Lamb Greene & Macrae [2006] EWCA Civ 683 Confidentiality : Injunction sought under s44 AA to stop US law firm representing a party at an arbitration on grounds that the firm had represented the applicants at an earlier date. Court heard that the lawyers assigned to the case were new-migrants to the firm who undertook not to breach confidentiality rules. Court accepted the undertaking and refused injunction at 1st instance & on appeal. Brooke LJ, VC; Mummery LJ. Scott Baker LJ. 26th May 2005.

Halifax Life Ltd v The Equitable Life Assurance Society [2007] EWHC 503 (Comm) Expert Determinator / duty to provide reasons : By analogy with s70(4) Arbitration Act 1996 the court can require an Umpire to provide adequate reasons for a decision - and here so ordered - to determine an appeal against the validity of the umpire's decision. Mr Justice Creswell. 13th March 2007

Halki Shipping Corporation v Sopex Oils Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 3062 Stay of Action : Application to defer to Arbitration under s9 Arbitration Act 1996. CA. Hirst LJ; Henry LJ; Swinton Thomas LJ; 19th December 1997.

Hallamshire Construction Plc v South Holland D.C. [2004] EWHC 8 (TCC) : Lawtel AC0106433 Challenge - s69 : Whether or not a contract had been extended by variations a question of fact not law : viz not about what constitutes a valid contract. Decision not challengeable. HHJ Thornton QC. 16th January 2004.

Halpern v Halpern [2007] EWCA Civ 291 Appeal against a decisio that a party cannot avoid a contract (here a settlement of a dispute submitted to arbitration) procured by duress in circumstances where he cannot offer the other party substantial restitutio in integrum. Court held that justice requires a remedy. Interretlationship between Rome Convention and Jewish Law examined - re choice of law. Waller LJ; Sedley KJ; Carnwathe LJ. 3rd April 2007

Harper Versicherungs AG v Indemnity Marine Assurance Co Ltd [2006] EWHC 1500 (Comm) Legal identity : parties to arbitration. Due to Part VII FSA 2000 mergers the names of parties to an arbitration were not accurately stated. Parties had issued a deed acknowledging submission to an arbitration to settle what was due under reinsurance contracts. Held : There was no need to institute fresh arbitrations for every name change. Arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine accounts between the parties. Mr Justice Tomlinson. 23rd June 2006.

Havant Borough Council v South Coast Shipping Company Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 261 Challenge s23 : Set aside s23 AA 1950. Unsuccessful challenge to a judgment refusing to set aside an award under s23 Arbitration Act 1950. Simon Brown LJ : Buxton LJ. 14th July 1998.

Heifer International Inc v Helge Christiansen [2007] EWHC 3015 (TCC) S9 AA 1996. Application for stay to the Danish Building & Construction Arbitration Board of a dispute about a UK building project. Impact of the UCTA & Brussels Convention. Stay granted. HHJ Toulmin. 18th December 2007

Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 175 Challenge s69 : refusal of certificate to appeal. High court refused leave to appeal a refusal to challenge under s69. Appeal against refusal denied – both because not justified in the circumstances and on the grounds that the CA has no jurisdiction to grant an appeal of refusal to grant a certificate allowing appeal. The basic rule is that a party has one chance to appeal, not multiple opportunities. Swinton Thomas LJ Waller LJ. Mrs Justice Arden. 25th May 2000.

Henry Boot Construction Ltd. v Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 814 Accrual of action. Question . “When a cause of action arises in respect of claims for interim and, more importantly in this case, final payment under construction contracts. This must always be a question of construction. “ VC; Dyson LJ; Thomas LJ. 16th June 2005

Hillcourt v Teliasonera [2006] EWHC 508 (Ch) LAWTEL AC9100860 Stay of Enforcement of arbitral award pending litigation of significant counterclaim. Ch D. Evans-Lombe J. 14th February 2006


HM S.S. Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs v. The Percy Thomas Partnership, Kier International Ltd [1998] EWHC TCC 348 Inordinate delay : Arbitration Act 1950. Contract performed 1986/87. Applications to appoint an arbitrator in April 1996 in respect of a defective roof. Notices of appointment issued in 1992 & 1993. Trial delayed pending supporting evidence. Court struck applications out for inordinate delay. HHJ Bowsher QC. 19th January 1998.

Hodsoll v Hon Louisa-Jane Hanbury [2008] EWHC 1970 (Ch) s69 AA 1996 : unsuccessful application to appeal arbitrator\'s award on liability of surety / lessee for outstanding repairs on termination of a lease : Held : Not obviously wrong - right test applied by tribunal : even if wrong - no issue of general importance. Mr Justice Morgan : Chancery 6th August 2008

Homepace Ltd v Sita South East Ltd [2007] EWHC 629 (Ch) Certification process and arbitration provision in a mining lease. Certification as to minable resources flawed - certifier did not answer the question posed - departing from the remit. Certificate invalid - accordingly arbitration clause did not kick in. No stay to arbitration. Mr. N. Strauss Q. C. 30th March 2007

Horn Linie GmbH & Co v Panamericana Formas E Impresos SA [2006] EWHC 373 (Comm) Choice of Law : Conflict : UK or Columbian Law. Whether HVR apply. Anti-suit injunction. Mr Justice Morison. Commercial Court. 6th March 2006.

Hughes v Hannover Ruckversicherungs-Aktengesellschaft [1997] EWCA Civ 857 Injunctive Relief : Conflict of laws : US based reinsurance - arbitration clause - ex aequo bono - US. CA declined jurisdiction - no real connection with the UK. Rch LJ; Morritt LJ; Thorpe LJ. 28th January 1997.

Hussman (Europe) Ltd v. Ahmad Pharaon [2002] EWHC 1134 (Comm) S67 AA 1996 : Jurisdiction Challenge : s68 irregularity : s69 & s28 fees. S67 : Whilst party to an arbitration agreement, was Pharaon party to the reference to arbitration? First award in favour of another entity – second award in favour of Pharaon – was tribunal functus officio? Court had rendered first award a nullity – but left it to tribunal to determine whether or not to go back and make award in the correct name. S68 – adequate opportunity. Both challenges failed – s28 issue deferred. Michael Brindle QC. 16th April 2002.

Hussmann (Europe) Ltd. v Pharaon [2003] EWCA Civ 266 s67 Challenge : Jurisdiction & personailty : First award against a company held invalid - subsequent award this time against the individual : Applicant asserted functus officio : Held : Valid award. Lord Phillips MR; Rix LJ; Scott Baker LJ. 4th March 2003.

Huyton SA v Jakil SPA [1998] EWCA Civ 525 Strike out – want of prosecution – arbitral award. CA on 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. Roch LJ; Aldous LJ; Brooke LJ. 24th March 1998.

Icon Navigation Corp v Sinochem International Petroleum (Bahamas) Co. Ltd. [2002] EWHC 2812 (Comm) S69 AA 1996 : Court sets out the correct procedures and circumstances for using s68 & s69. On the facts an appeal against a finding of the tribunal that there was no duty to load an oil cargo at the temperature at which the owners had to maintain it was upheld. In consequence the charterers were liable for additional freight for cargo not discharged : counterclaim for short delivery failed. Challenge to arbitrators interpretation of contract – was there a duty to load a cargo at 950 placed on the charterer before the shipowner’s duty to maintain that temperature arose. Secondary s68 challenge to the case management of the arbitration – should the tribunal have ensured that the question of whether or not loading temperature was a duty have been addressed head on in the hearing to ensure both parties a fair representation? Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 19th December 2002.

Import Export Metro Ltd. v Compania Sud Americana De Vapores S.A. [2003] EWHC 11 (Comm) Stay to arbitration s9. Application for stay to arbitration in Chile refused. Whilst the fact that the two proceedings were at the same time and that might cause inconvenience, the claims were distinct and separate. Application refused. Mr Justice Gross. 23rd January 2003.

Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [1998] EWCA Civ 1461 Stay to arbitration : s9 : approved. CA. Hobhouse LJ; Thorpe LJ; Mummery LJ.30th September 1998.

Inco Europe Ltd v. First Choice Distribution (A Firm) [2000] UKHL 15 Stay s9 – right to appeal. House of Lords clarifies the scope for appeal under the Arbitration Act 1996 in the light of the wording of s107 consequential amendments and cross referencing s18 SCA 1981. There is a right to appeal – though it is subject to the certification process of the court. Lords Nicholls ; Jauncey ; Steyn ; Clyde ; Millett. 9th March 2000.

Indescon Ltd v Sir Robert Ogden CBE LLD [2004] EWHC 2326 (TCC) Appointment : Arbitration reference first made in 1992 and an arbitrator appointed. Due to issues with the arbitrator he resigned and a replacement arbitrator appointed under 1992 reference terms. Defendant asserted the right to appoint had died through effuxion and abandonment. Court held : Action still alive : appointment valid. TCC. HHJ. David Wilcox. 20th August 2004.

Intermet FZCO v Ansol Ltd [2007] EWHC 226 (Comm) Injunction of arbitral proceedings. Application to injunct arbitral proceedings refused. Whether the same issue replicated in arbitration and litigation proceedings. However only one of the parties to the contract arbitration was also a party to the fraud litigation. Held : Both actions could proceed simultaneously. Mrs Justice Gloster. 9th February 2007.

Internaut Shipping GmbH & Anor v Fercometal Sarl [2003] EWCA Civ 812 Identity of parties to arbitration. Sub-charterparty dispute commenced in the name of the owners, not the main charterers. Court ordered that the title of the arbitration be amended to reflect the correct names of the contractual personalities in dispute. Mummery LJ; Sedley LJ; Rix LJ. 17th June 2003.

Invensys Plc v Automotive Sealing Systems Ltd. [2001] EWHC 501 (Comm) Expert determination : challenge. Application for summary judgement enforcing determination of an expert, said to be enforceable subject to manifest error. No manifest error having been established, enforcement ordered. Mr Justice Thomas. 8th November 2001.

IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [2005] EWHC 726 (Comm) Challenge s103 : set aside award : New York Convention. Application to set aside or to stay enforcement pending challenge and cross application for security of costs. Held : Arguable defence in respect of duplication in award. 13M un-disputably due – and immediate payment ordered plus 50M security to be paid into court pending outcome of challenge before Nigerian court. Mr Justice Gross. 27th April 2005.

IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd. v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation [2008] EWHC 797 (Comm) New York Award : Application for partial enforcement of an award subject to a previous adjournment of enforcement action pending outcome of challenge before Nigerian Court, in circumstances where 3 years had passed and challenge still ongoing : Held : Court could award partial enforcement of elements of award not seriously subject to challenge. Mr Justice Tomlinson : Commercial Court. 17th April 2008

Irvani v Irvani [2000] 1 Lloyd\'s Rep 412 Application to set aside award : Successful appeal against 1st Instance judgement that award was valid. Whether arbitrator biased : whether judge complied with rules of natural justice. CA before Nourse J, Buxton LJJ, Ferris J. 9th December 1999.

J Jarvis & Sons Ltd v Blue Circle Dartford Estates Ltd [2007] EWHC 1262 (TCC) Challenge s69 : Application for injunction to prevent continuance of arbitration s37 SCA 1981 / challenge to interim award s69. Whether continuance of arbitration oppressive or vexatious. Application made at a very late stage when arbitration imminent. Potential concurrent actions in court and tribunal is not in itself oppressive. Risk of double liability minimal. Arbitrator has duty to manage the process - not vexatious. A real claim at stake. Mr Justice Jackson. 14th May 2007

J Jarvis & Sons Plc v Galliard Homes Ltd (1999) Lawtel AC7200524 Stay : Letter of intent : whether a contract - whether arbitrator had jurisdiction. AA 1950. CA. Evans LJ, Schiemann LJ, Lindsay J. 12th November 1999.

John Mowlem Construction Plc v Neil F Jones & Co [2004] EWCA Civ 768 Insurance : duty of solicitors to advise of risk. At first instance and on appeal a duty of solicitors to advise on a risk that the applicant should have insured against denied. Judge LJ; Tuckey LJ; Kay LJ. 30th June 2004

JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant v Ronly Holdings Ltd [2004] EWHC 245 (Comm) Jurisdiction : Validity where only two of four potential parties makes a referrence. Mr Justice Colman. 16th February 2004.

Kallang Shipping SA v Axa Assurances Senegal [2006] EWHC 2825 (Comm) Anti-suit injunction. Failed application to lift an anti-suit injunction in respect of court proceedings in Dakar in favour of an LCIA arbitration. Mrs Justice Gloster. 7th November 2006.

Kanoria v Guinness [2006] EWCA Civ 222 Challenge : s103 A.A. 1996. Party not notified of arbitration. Could not defend himself. Award unenforceable. CA. Lord Phillips MR.Sir Anthony Clarke; May LJ. 21st February 2006.

Kastner v Jason [2004] EWCA Civ 1599 S48 AA 1996 : Freezing order s48 – Beth Din. CA on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Lightman) : freezing order made by arbitrators, restraining the respondent in the arbitration from disposing of his home without the arbitrators\' written consent. Appeal failed.A Beth Din issued a freezing order on property, the principal asset of the respondent. The respondent agreed to abide by the order and a caution was placed on the Land Registry. The respondent sold the property and left the country. The purchaser’s solicitor failed to take note of the caution. The issue turned on whether Jewish Law created an interest in personam or in rem. The court heard evidence of Jewish Law and concluded that the interest is in rem. Thus there was no legal interest in the property to support a caution.LCJ; Clarke LJ;Rix LJ. 2nd December 2004.

Kastner v Jason [2004] EWHC 592 (Ch) Freezing order s48 – Beth Din. Fraud & deceit arbitration. A Beth Din ordered a freezing order on property which was conveyed to a third party contrary to the freezing order. Court held that the freezing order of a tribunal should not be enforced against the purchaser and a notice in the land registry of the order be removed enabling the buyer to register title. Mr Justice Lightman. 23rd March 2004.

Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2007] EWHC 2729 (Comm) Injunction against arbitration.Previous arbitration set aside for lack of jurisdiction. Further attempts to arbitration injuncted as oppressive actions.Mr Justice Tomlinson. 21st November 2007

Kazakstan v Istil Group Inc [2007] EWCA Civ 471 : Lawtel AC0113729 Jurisdiction Challenge - s67 - compatibiity with Art VI ECHR. Arden LJ, Longmore LJ, Toulson LJ. 25th April 2007

Kemi v Blackburn Chemicals Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 457 Set off – different contracts : stay of counterclaim to arbitration. CA on appeal from Commercial Court (HHJ David Mackie) : Issue : The degree of connection which must be shown between (1) a claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a contract and (2) a cross-claim for unliquidated damages for breach of a different contract between the same parties, in order to permit the latter claim to be the subject of an equitable set-off against the former claim, where the second claim is subject to an arbitration clause. At first instance and on appeal held that set off allowed – but trial limited to question of liability, pending outcome of arbitration. Potter LJ; Sedley LJ;Jonathan Partker LJ. 3rd April 2001.

Kershaw Mechanical Services Ltd v Kendrick Construction Ltd [2006] EWHC 727 (TCC) Challenge s69 : point of law. Appeal against the construction of the contract regarding variations. Extensive consideration of the role of the court under s69. Court found that arbitrator applied the correct construction. Appeal failed. Mr Justice Jackson. 2nd March 2006.

Koch Shipping Inc v Richard Butler (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 1280 Confidentiality : A lawyer working for a firm representing a party to an arbitration went to work for the representatives of the other party. She gave undertakings to respect the confidentiality of her previous client. Injunctive relief to prevent her new firm continuing to represent their client was rejected. There was no risk of accidental breach of confidentiality. Ward LJ; Tuckey LJ; Clarke LJ. 22nd July 2002.

Kohn v Wagschal [2007] EWCA Civ 1022 S66 AA 1996 : enforcement & challenge. Unsuccessful appeal against enforcement of an award on grounds of illegality – i.e. attempts to avoid paying tax. Held : Award enforced but papers to be passed to the Revenue. Waller LJ; Laws LJ; Gage LJ. 24th October 2007

Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 5 Stay application : part 20 defendants. Application for stay of part 20 proceedings pending determination of first party trial refused. Failed appeal. Sir Anthony Clarke MR : Rix LJ ; Richards LJ. 17th January 2006.

Konkola Copper Mines Plc v Coromin [2005] EWHC 898 (Comm) Stay application : part 20 defendants. Application for stay of part 20 proceedings pending determination of first party trial refused. Mr Justice Colman. 10th May 2005.

Korda v ITF Ltd (t/a The International Tennis Federation) [1999] EWCA Civ 1098 Jurisdiction : Right of ITF to make an appeal to the Court of Sports Arbitration against an appeal committee's finding that a tennis player with unlawful substances in his body not be penalised. Held : CAS has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. CA. Morritt LJ; Auld LJ; Clarke LJ; 25th March 1999


Korea National Insurance Corp v Allianz Global Corp & Speciality AG [2007] EWCA Civ 1066 Striking out : claim and defence : appeal :Unsuccessful appeal order striking out elements of claim and defence in respect of a prior arbitration. Held : No real prospect of success. Buxton LJ; Jacob LJ ; Moore-Bick LJ. 30th October 2007

Lady Navigation Inc v Lauritzencool AB [2005] EWCA Civ 579 Injunctive relief in support of arbitration. Court issued injunctive relief to the effect that vessels subject to charters which had given rise to a dispute should not be chartered out to third parties pending the outcome of the arbitration. Appeal asserting this amounted to specific performance and was not allowed dismissed. Judge LJ; Mance LJ; Thomas LJ. 17th May 2005.

Lafarge Redlands Aggregates Ltd v. Shephard Hill Civil Engineering Ltd [2000] UKHL 46 Jurisdiction : Clause 18(2) ICE 5th ed. Contract called for three party arbitration : contractor unwilling to invoke tri-party arbitration : Held : Subcontractor entitled to submit dispute to a two party arbitral process for resolution. Lords Hope; Cooke; Clyde; Hobhouse; Millett. 27th July 2000.

Lancecrest Ltd. v Asiwaju [2005] EWCA Civ 117 Notice of arbitration. Complex rent review arbitration arrangements – notice had to be given within specific periods. Question : was a valid notice given and hence the tribunal had jurisdiction? Held Yes : hence the award was valid. Brooke LJ : Clarke LJ; Neuberger LJ. 11th February 2005.

Latvian Shipping Comp v Insurance Co \"Ingosstrakh\" Ltd [1998] EWHC 1201 (Comm) 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. Mr Justice Langley. 27th November 1998.

Lauritzencool Ab v Lady Navigation Inc [2004] EWHC 2607 (Comm) Injunction s44(2)(e). Injunction restraining owners from fixing vessels subject to a charterparty pending outcome of arbitration. Mr Justice Cooke. 12th November 2004.

Law Debenture Trust Corp Plc v Elektrim Finance BV [2005] EWHC 1412 (Ch) Stay to arbitration s9. Contract provided for arbitration but gave one party the right to litigate. One party submitted dispute to arbitration. Subsequently the other commenced litigation. Application for stay refused. The contract did not create an embargo on litigation once arbitration commenced. Three Shipping Ltd v Harebell Shipping Ltd [2005] 1 Lloyds Rep 509. Order restraining continuation of the arbitration issues. Mr Justice Mann. 1st July 2005.

Legal Services Commission v Aaronson [2006] EWHC 1162 (QB) Disclosure application. LSC applied for disclosure of all public files of Law Firm to establish sums due to the Commission. Account disputes subject to arbitration. The firm were only prepared to disclose files within the arbitral process, not outside or independent of it. The LSC wanted disclosure to enable it to negotiate a settlement. Disclosure refused. The LSC would get all it was entitled to within the arbitration. Mr Justice Jack. 24th May 2006.

Legal Services Commission v Aaronson [2006] EWHC 1231 (QB) Cost of application for stay s9. Following a successful application for a stay the LSC argued that costs should not follow the event because their attempts to settle outside arbitration were frustrated because the applicants had refused to disclose documents outside the arbitration. Held : Whilst obstructive, this was not a reason to deprive the applicants of costs of the application. Mr Justice Jack. 26th May 2006.

Leibinger v Stryker Trauma GmbH [2006] EWHC 690 (Comm) s67 Arbitration Act Challenge : Curial Law - England or Germany? Commercial Court. Mr Justice Cooke. 31st March 2006.

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa [2003] EWCA Civ 1159 Currency in which award should be paid. Brooke LJ; Latham LJ; Mr Justice Holman. 31st July 2003.

Lesotho Highlands Development Authority v. Impregilo SpA [2005] UKHL 43 Currency of award. Successful appeal to House of Lords. Lords Steyn; Hoffmann; Phillips of Worth Matravers; Scott of Foscote; Rodger of Earlsferry. 30th June 2005.

Lesquende Ltd v. Planning & Environment Committee of Jersey [1998] UKPC 4 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. Lords Browne-Wilkinson ; Nicholls ; Hoffmann ; Clyde ; Hutton. 11th February 1998.

Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co Canada [2004] EWHC 343 (Comm) Challenge s68 serious irregularity s69 point of law. Whether a prior award in an arbitration between other parties was relevant to this arbitration. Held : Prior award not relevant or admissible. Subsidiary claim that arbitrators could not rely on assurances of a party’s representatives dismissed. Arbitrators have to rely on such assurances all the time. Mr Justice Toulson. 26th February 2004.

Lindner Ceilings Floors Partitions Plc v. How Engineering Services Ltd [2000] EWHC TCC 46 Sealed offer : Without prejudice to costs. Validity. HHJ Seymour. 28th November 2000

LJ Korbetis v Transgrain Shipping BV [2005] EWHC 1345 (QB) Appointment of arbitrator s18 / s12 extension of time : s32 preliminary point of law. Had an arbitrator been validly appointed? A fax accepting the nomination of an arbitrator was sent to the wrong fax address and was not received. This defect was discovered many months later and an attempt made to appoint the arbitrator by sending statement of claim direct to him. Postal rule applied to misdirected fax. No acceptance communicated. No appointment made. The arbitration became time barred and the subsequent appointment was too late. A s12 application for extension of time refused. HHJ Toulson. 17th June 2005.

Lomax Leisure v Fabric London [2003] EWHC 307 (Ch) Indemnity against costs : Contract term to indemnify a party against legal costs of defending a third party claim by arbitration upheld. Mr Justice Peter Smith. Chancery Div. 26th February 2003.

London Borough of Southwark v Long [2002] EWCA Civ 403 Evidence – arbitral award. The terms of a rent arbitration award provide evidence of the duties under a rent contract. In the circumstances the court found that the tenant could not comply with the order regarding disposal of rubbish since the rubbish collection service provided were inadequate. Ward LJ; Chadwick LJ; Arden LJ. 27th March 2002.

London Borough of Southwark v. Mills [1999] UKHL 40 Challenge : Point of Law. Tenancy Arbitration ordered council to provide sound insulation between tenements : Overturned by CA and then by HL. Sound insulation not a requirement of the Tenancy Agreement. Whilst an unsatisfactory situation the cost of updating old housing stock is a political judgement. Lords Slynn; Hadley; Steyn; Hoffmann; Clyde; Millett. 21st October 1999.

London Underground Ltd v Citylink Telecommunications Ltd [2007] EWHC 1749 (TCC) Challenge and cross challenge S68 Arbitration Act 1996 - Serious irregularity : s69 Challenge - Point of law : All challenges failed : Award upheld. Issue - applications for extensions of time in construction contract : Appeal against post adjudication arbitration. Mr Justice Ramsey: 20th July 2007

Loon Energy Inc v Integra Mining [2007] EWHC 1876 (Comm) s9 AA 1996 : Application for stay to arbitration : applications for declarations on interpretation of terms of contract. Mr Justice Langley. 31st July 2007

M/S Alghanim Industries Inc v Skandia International Ins. Corp [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 30, Costs : Jurisdiction to tax : Held that under the applicable arbitration rules the tribunal and not the court had the jurisdiction and the duty to tax costs. Barbara Dohmann QC . 14th March 2001.

Mabey & Johnson Ltd. v Ecclesiastical Insurance Office Plc [2003] EWHC 1523 (Comm) Jurisdiction : Distinct causes of action. Jurisdiction – separate cases : Failures in a bridge prompted revisiting and rectifying design in another : Held Separate contracts so separate causes of action and limitation times. Mr Justice Morison. 27th June 2003.

Mabey and Johnson Ltd v Danos [2007] EWHC 1094 (Ch) Stay to arbitration : Fraud : Agency dispute already subject to arbitration - in Jamaica. Fraud action filed against the Principal - should this be stayed to arbitration as well - did Jamaica have jurisdiction. Held : All the relevant players in the UK. Justice required a full trial. Stay refused. Mr Justice Henderson. 11th May 2007

Majorboom Ltd v National House Building Council [2008] EWHC 2672 (TCC) s69 AA 1996 unsuccessful application to appeal on a point of law. Held : All points questions of fact dressed up as law - viz whether or not a director had actual or imputed knowledge of defects which gave rise to a right to refer dispute to arbitration under the NHBC rules. Mr Justice Coulson. 24th October 2008.

Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD [2002] EWHC 2210 (Comm) Force majeure. Post s44 Arbitration Act 1996 applications for support of arbitration : force majeure. Mr Justice Aikens. 4th November 2002.

Man Nutzfahrzeuge Ag v Freightliner Ltd. [2005] EWHC 2347 (Comm) S49(3) AA 1996 : compound interest. Whether compound interest is punitive or normal for a tribunal in such circumstances. LJ Moore-Bick. 28th October 2005.

Marc Rich Agriculture Trading SA v Agrimex Ltd [2000] EWHC 193 (Comm) Time bar - crystallisation. Gafta Arbitration : When did dispute crystallise – commencement of time for computation of time bar : whether claim time barred and tribunal out of jurisdiction. Mr Justice Langley. 6th April 2000.

Margulead Ltd. v Exide Technologies [2004] EWHC 1019 (Comm) Challenge s68 serious irregularity. Alleged lost opportunity to respond to closing speech of respondent and further arbitrator did not refer to an assertion that the other party had affirmed a contract, negating allegations of mistake. Asserted that where there was no opportunity to reply the assumption is that it is unnecessary because the arbitrator agrees with you so no need to reply. Held : It is quite usual in International Arbitration for there to be no reply to final oral submissions of a respondent and no inference can be drawn that the arbitrator agrees with the claimant. Secondly, a deficiency of reasons in a reasoned award is not capable of amounting to a serious irregularity within the meaning of Section 68 of 1996 Act unless it amounts to a \"failure by the tribunal to deal with all the issues that were put to it\" within Section 68(2)(d). Mr Justice Colman. 6th May 2004.

Maridive VII, v Key Singapore, [2004] EWHC 2227 (Comm) Challenge s69 point of law or fact. Appeal arbitrator changed the base value upon which the award was compounded and further altered the contributions of the parties in respect of a salvage and tow claim. The consequent reduction in the award was challenged. Court held : The second arbitrator made no errors of law or principle. Decision of fact – challenge failed. Mr Justice David Steel. 6th October 2004.

Marshall v Capitol Holdings Limited [2006] IEHC 271 s38 Arbitration Act 1954 : Consumer arbitration : Agreement to dispense with reasons : Losing claimant sought set aside on grounds that the terms of the arbitration agreement offended Unfair Contract Terms Regulations : Held : Claimant could have gone to court, but having chosen arbitration he had forgone that right - equally he could have asked for reasons : Arbitration had followed the law. Award upheld. Murphy J. High Court. 21st July 2006

Matthew Hall Ortech Ltd v. Tarmac Roadstone Ltd [1997] EWHC TCC 352 Challenge to interim award : Meaning of and impact of Clause 38.5 IChem : conclusive evidential effect of Final Certificate acts as a bar to further claims in contract & tort. HHJ Thornton Q.C. 11th December, 1997

Metal Distributors (UK) Ltd. v ZCCM Investment Holdings Plc [2005] EWHC 156 (Comm) Challenge s67 jurisdiction. Challenge to preliminary determination by tribunal that it did not have jurisdiction over a counter claim. Held : Whilst the scope of the clause extended to counterclaims regarding quality of goods under the contract it did not extend to counterclaims arising out of alleged breaches of other contracts. Tribunal’s determination upheld. Mr Justice Cresswell. 14th January 2005.

Metropolitan Property Realizations Ltd v Atmore Investments Ltd [2008] EWHC 2925 (Ch) s68 Arbitration Act 1998 challenge to rent review award : Held : Arbitrator failed to factor in a notional profit from sublets into the determination of a fair rent. Award sent back for corection. Mr Justice Sales. 28th November 2008

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2008] EWHC 2684 (Comm) s67 AA. 1996. Procedural Orders versus Interim Award on jurisdiction : Held : Whether an order or an award was a matter of substance not of form. In the cirucmstances the tribunal issued orders as to amendment of claim and disclosure - neither of which was open to a s67 challenge. Mr Justice Teare. 6th November 2008.

Middleton (G) Ltd v Berry Creek Overseas Development Ltd [2007] EWHC 318 (TCC) s66 enforcement action / application for stay pending contra claim action : Stay refused - enforcement ordered. HHJ Peter Coulson. 9th February 2007

Miller Construction Ltd v. James Moore Earthmoving [2000] EWHC TCC 52 Application to set aside award and remove an arbitrator. HHJ Seymour. 1st November 2000

Mobil Cerro Negro Ltd v Petroleos De Venezuela SA [2008] EWHC 532 (Comm) S44 AA 1998 – Freezing order - privacy. Successful application for set aside of a freezing order pursuant to an arbitration. Confidentiality / privacy respected so that underlying commercial matters not disclosed in the report. Mr Justice Walker : 18th March 2008

Morgan Sindall Plc v Sawston Farms (Cambs) Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1905 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. Robert Hutchinson LJ; Robert Walker LJ; Tuckey L.J. 3rd December 1998

Morrow Charlton Partnership v. Vaughan Developments Ltd T/A Vaughan Engineering Group [2000] NIQB 16 The case for arbitration in lieu of litigation. McLaughlin J : 7th June 2000

Mowlem Plc v PHI Group Ltd (2004) Lawtel AC0106829 s69 Challenge : Failed - no case for a quantum meruit. Determinations of fact not challengeable. Judge Gilliland QC. 28th July 2004.

Musawi v RE International (UK) Ltd [2007] EWHC 2981 (Ch) s46 Arbitration Act 1996 : Inter-relationship between Sharia Law and English Law - conflicts and substantive law. Enforcement of arbitral award. Mr Justice David Richards. 14th December 2007.

Mylcrist Builders Ltd v Buck [2008] EWHC 2172 (TCC) s17(1) Arbitration Act 1996 : Invalid inilateral appointment : Consumer arbitration - terms in contract insufficiently clear to comply with Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 & 1999. Consumer objected and took no part in the process. Award unenforceable. Mr Justice Ramsey. 19th September 2008.

Nasharty v J Sainsbury Plc [2003] EWHC 2195 (Comm) S9 AA 1996 : Stay application. Whether arbitration agreement applied to the parties : Held : Yes – stay to Paris arbitration. Mr Julian Flaux QC. 30th September 2003.

National Grid Gas Plc v Lafarge Aggregates Ltd [2006] EWHC 2559 (Ch) Challenge s69 : question of law. Appeal : question of law – whether lost profit recoverable under the deed. Mr Justice Cooke. 18th October 2006.

National Power Plc v National Grid Company Plc [1998] EWCA Civ 1227 Jurisdictional Challenge : Scope. CA. Millett LJ; Morritt LJ; Potter LJ. 16th July 1998

Naviera v Allied Maritime Inc [2002] EWCA Civ 1147 Appeal against arbitral award served out of time or one the wrong person ie a lawyer not instucted to reviece service. Application for extention of time refused. CA. Simon Brown LJ. VC. Mance LJ; Latham LJ. 16th July 2002.

Newfield Construction Ltd. v Tomlinson [2004] EWHC 3051 Application to set aside on grounds of serious irregulatiry upheld. HHJ Peter Coulson. 10th November 2004.

Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v IPCO (Nigeria) Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1157 Can part of a New York Convention arbitration award be enforced? How should sequential applications for enforcement of such an award be approached? CA before Tuckey LJ; Wall LJ; Rimer LJ. 21st October 2008

NIIB Group Ltd v Ellis [2003] NIQB 65 Case stated. Appeal from a small claims arbitration by way of a case stated by Deputy District Judge Kearney under Article 30(4)(b) of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980. HHJ Weatherup. 17th October 2003.

Nisshin Shipping Co. Ltd v Cleaves & Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 2602 Jurisdiction : Third Party Rights : Held under s1(1)(b)Contract 3rd Parties Rights Act 1999 -charterparty purported to confer a benefit on brokers : that being so, any dispute arising out of that agreement was subject to the general arbitration provision in the contract. Mr Justice Colman. 7th November 2003

Noble Assurance Cor v Gerling-Konzern General Insurance Co [2007] EWHC 253 (Comm) Double Jeopardy. Res judicata – issue estoppel – anti-suit injunction : UK arbitration and subsequent action in Vermont. Toulson LJ. 22nd February 2007.

Nokia Corporation v Interdigital Technology Corporation [2005] EWCA Civ 614 Stay of proceedings s9. Application to stay patent proceedings pending arbitration on amounts due under licence. Held : Stay refused – validity of patent a key factor in the validity of sums due under the licence and thus key to the outcome of the arbitration – and thus needs to be settled as soon as possible to assist the tribunal. Mummery LJ; Rix LJ; Jacob LJ. 26th April 2005.

Norbrook Laboratories Ltd v Tank [2006] EWHC 1055 (Comm) Natural Justice : The role of the arbitrator in gathering evidence : Undisclosed contact by arbitrator with witnesses not allowed. Mr Justice Colman. 12th May 2006.

Norsk Hydro ASA v The State Property Fund of Ukraine & Ors [2002] EWHC 2120 (Comm) S100 AA 1996 : Set aside orders. Application to set aside two court orders. Swedish Arbitral award. Order for enforcement of foreign award. Interim third party debt order. Order set aside – made against the wrong legal personality. Mr Justice Gross. 18th October 2002.

North Range Shipping Ltd v Seatrans Shipping Corporation [2001] EWCA Civ 1260 Challenge to trial judges refusal to grant permission to appeal. CA on appeal from QBD (Mr Justice David Steel) : Question here deferred to be heard at a later hearing along with issues. Question of interrelationship between Human Rights Act and s69 raised – court doubted right of CA to over-rule trial judge on right to appeal. Clarke LJ; Kay LJ. 16th July 2001.

North Range Shipping Ltd. v Seatrans Shipping Corp. [2002] EWCA Civ 405 s69 AA'96. Reasons : Refusal of application for appeal : Duty of court to provide reasons under HRA. CA. Peter Gibson LJ; Aldous LJ; Tuckey LJ. 14th March 2002

O'Callaghan v Coral Racing Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1801 Unenforceable agreements : 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. Hirst LJ; May LJ; Sir Christopher Slade. 19th November 1998.

OAO Northern Shipping Co v Remolcadores De Marin SL (Remmar) [2007] EWHC 1821 (Comm) Application under s68 Arbitration Act 1996 for an order setting aside, alternatively remitting for further consideration, an arbitral award. Arbitration set aside for serious irregularity and resubmitted to the tribunal for further consideration. Mrs Justice Gloster. 26th July 2007

Occidental Exploration & Production Company v Republic of Ecuador [2005] EWCA Civ 1116 Challenge to jurisdiction of English court to hear a challenge to an award, whose seat was stated to be London England. Held the court had jurisdiction. Merits of the challenge not dealt with here. Plea of state immunity and non-jsticiability rejected. Lord Phillips MR. Clarke LJ; Mance LJ. 9th September 2005

Ocean Marine Navigation Ltd. v Koch Carbon Inc [2003] EWHC 1936 (Comm) Arrest as security. Vessel arrested by charterer as security for an arbitration which the charterer lost. Was the vessel still on hire or off hire or had the vessel been returned? This would impact upon whether any award would be due for that period or whether sums due in respect of the arrest, to provide what proved to be unnecessary security should be pursued in court. Court of the view that the arbitrator’s award was unclear/potentially in error and award remitted for reconsideration/clarification. Mr Justice Simon. 31st July 2003.

Oceanografia SA DE CV v DSND Subsea AS [2006] EWHC 1360 (Comm) Challenge s67 : jurisdiction. Unsuccessful challenge to jurisdiction of tribunal : waiver and submission to proceedings. Mr Justice Aikens. 12th June 2006.

Oil Basins Ltd v BHP Billiton Ltd [2007] VSCA 255 Award – Interim award – Form of award – Requirement to include in award statement of reasons for making award – Judicial review of awards – Question of law arising out of award – Whether failure to include adequate statement of reasons in award constitutes manifest error of law on face of award – Whether inadequacy of reasons substantially affects rights of one or more parties – Misconduct – Technical misconduct – Whether failure to include adequate statement of reasons in award constitutes technical misconduct – Power to set aside award – Whether appropriate to set aside award due to inadequacy of reasons – Reasons – Observations as to standard of reasons required to be included in awards – Commercial Arbitration Act 1984, ss 29(1)(c), 38, 42 and 43. Buchanan, Nettle; Dodds-Streeton JJA. 16th November 2007.

Omnium de Traitement et de valorisation. v. Hilmarton Ltd [1999] 2 Lloyd\'s Rep 222 Set aside : Failed application to set aside an order enforcing an award on the basis of breach of public policy of state where obligation carried out. Walker J. Commercial Court. 24th May 1999.

Orascom Telecom Holding SAE v Republic of Chad [2008] EWHC 1841 (Comm) State immunity : application by the Claimant, for a final Third Party Debt Order (what used to be called a Garnishee Order) in respect of monies held by the Third Party Citibank NA for the First Defendant, the Republic of Chad in order to enforce its unpaid Arbitration Award by the International Chamber of Commerce against Chad. Mr Justice Burton. 28th July 2008

Orchard v Hutchings [1997] EWCA Civ 2269 Challenge s69 : point of law or fact? During the course of an arbitration the claimant produced a plan and asserted defects in a conservatory. The applicant appealed on the basis that there was an irregularity in that he asserted that he had never seen the plan and the arbitrator ignored this. Held : By implication the arbitrator believed he had seen the plan. Issue of fact – appeal failed. Otton LJ; Hutchinson LJ. 31st July 1997.

Osei Sankofa & Chartlon Athletic Football Co Ltd v Football Association Ltd (2007) EWHC 78 (Comm) Finality of FA Disciplinary Commission decisions : whether reasoned decision required. Held : Decisions final by agreement - which does not require reasons. Whilst Wednesbury unreasonableness is a ground for challenge, the decision in question was not self evidently unreasonable. On the balance of convenience - viz the need of sport to produce rapid, determinative decisions, application for relief failed. Mr Justice Simon. 12th January 2007.

OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corporation [2005] EWCA Civ 710 Stay to arbitration s9. Issue : whether s6(1) of the Canadian Marine Liability Act 2001 which enabled the Canadian court to override an arbitration clause, choice of law and exclusive jurisdiction (here London) was a reason to issue to stay to the Canadian Court. Held : Stay refused – anti-suit injunction issued. Laws LJ; Rix LJ; Longmore LJ. 13th June 2005.

OT Africa Line Ltd. v Magic Sportswear Corporation [2004] EWHC 2441 (Comm) Conflicts : Anti-suit. Impact of Section 46(1) of the Canadian Maritime Liability Act 2001 which seeks to override choice of law and forum and arbitration clause. Held : Anti-suit injunction to prevent litigation in Canada issued. Mr Justice Langley. 3rd November 2004.

Ove Arup v Mirant Asia-Pacific Construction (Hong Kong) Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1729 Notice : Form. Could correspondence as opposed to an OFFICIAL FORM OF SUBMISSION amount to a submission of a dispute to arbitration. Held : Yes. Auld LJ; May LJ; Jacob LJ. 2nd December 2003.

Oxford Architects Partnership v Cheltenham Ladies College [2006] EWHC 3156 (TCC) Challenge s69 limitation period. Successful challenge against award on the grounds that the claims were statute barred. Here the architects challenged an award of an arbitrator in relation to breach of duty regarding design and on-going supervision of a construction project on the grounds that the claims were time barred. Appeal sustained. Mr Justice Ramsey. 17th November 2006.

O\'Donoghue v Enterprise Inns Plc [2008] EWHC B15 (Ch) s68 Arbitration Act 1996 challenge to interim rent arbitration award. Whether arbitrator should have held an oral hearing and cross examination. Asserts loss of opportunity to address alterations to trading figures applied by the arbitrator. Application failed - party had been given opportunity to make written submissions but failed to do so. Loss of right to object. Award within permissible range reflecting the evidence. HHJ Behrens. 29th September 2008

Pacific Maritime (Asia) Ltd. v Holystone Overseas Ltd. [2007] EWHC 2319 (Comm) S44(3) AA 1996 : freezing order. Failed attempt to remit questions as to a freezing order to the tribunal. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 11th October 2007

Palmers Corrosion Control Ltd v Tyne Dock Engineering Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2776 Stay s4 AA 1950 Third party. CA on appeal from QBD (HHJ Faulks) : Stay of third party proceedings to arbitration removed. Staughton LJ; Hirst LJ; Potter LJ. 20th November 1997.

Park Lane Ventures Ltd v Locke [2006] EWHC 1578 (Ch) Stay to arbitration s9 withdrawn. Party withdrew and application for stay. The application submitted existence of documents. This provided evidence for the purposes of this litigation that both parties intended the documents to have legal force. Mr John Randall QC. 29th June 2006.

Patel v Patel [1999] EWCA Civ 1080 Application s9 AA 1996 Stay – whether steps taken in proceedings. CA on appeal from Official Referee’s Business. Stay granted. Merely responding to a claim and giving notice of intention to defend is not a step in the proceedings which under s9(3) might preclude application for a stay. Woolf MR Lord; Otton LJ; Ward LJ. 24th March 1999.

Pendulum Shipping Inc v P U Aspiration PTE Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1158 S69 AA 1996 : refusal of leave. CA on appeal from Commercial Court (Mr Justice Moore-Bick) regarding refusal of leave to appeal under s69 a prior refusal of leave to appeal. First refusal given without reasons. In round two Moore-Bick noted the general importance but did not doubt the correctness of the tribunal’s award. The North Range v Sea Trans judgment intervened overturning the Antios and requiring reasons for refusal. Sufficient reasons – appeal dismissed. Tuckey LJ. 22nd July 2002.

Pentonville Shipping Ltd. v Transfield Shipping Inc (MV Johnny K) [2006] EWHC 134 (Comm) Challenge s69 Point of Law. The court determined that there is no clearly and consistently expressed finding by the arbitrators on the critical question by whom the order to sail was in fact given. With that in mind the issue was remitted to the arbitrators for consideration. The court noted that having complied with that instruction, it was open to the arbitrators to vary or reconfirm the award. A chartered vessel sailed without loading a full cargo. It would appear that the order to sail came from the port authority since the vessel would have had to remain in port for 3 weeks to get a high enough tide to turn in order to leave. The court remitted the award to the tribunal to address the issue of who was responsible for the order rather that who gave the order. Mr Justice Tomlinson. 10th February 2006.

Penwith District Council v VP Developments Ltd. [2005] EWHC 259 (Ch) Insolvency : bankruptcy petition. Petition for bankruptcy. The company against whom the petition is sought is involved in substantial arbitration proceedings : the bankruptcy would terminate these when there is a real prospect of recovery and would thus be wrong. There were no substantial or compelling reasons to accede to the petition. Mr Justice Laddie. 1st March 2005.

Penwith District Council v. VP Developments Ltd [1999] EWHC TCC 231 Finality of certificated AA 1950. Court here called on to examine the effect of clause 30 JCT 1980 on finality of final certificate under AA 1950. Final certificate not questioned until 3 years after the event. Judge arbitrator opened up the certificate. Held : Final. 21st May 1999.

Peoples\' Insurance Company of China v Vysanthi Shipping Co Ltd [2003] EWHC 1655 (Comm) S66 AA 1996 Enforcement Challenge s67 : extension of time : GA dispute following a grounding. Owners successfully arbitrated the dispute and obtained an enforcement judgment. Subsequent to the award an action was commenced in the PRC followed by a late application to challenge arbitrator’s jurisdiction and application for extension of time. Extension refused. Challenge failed. Arbitrator seized of jurisdiction. Arbitral award : subsequent judicial determination in China : Double jeopardy : Award enforced. Mr Justice Thomas. 10th July 2003.

Permasteelisa Japan KK v Bouyguesstroi [2007] EWHC 3508 (TCC) s44(3) Arbitration Act 1996 : Application for extension of an iinjunction in support of arbitration. Mr Justice Ramsey. 7th November 2007

Peter Schwartz (Overseas) P/L v Morton [2003] VSC 144 Arbitration - application for extension of time - leave to appeal - setting aside award for misconduct - sufficiency of statement of reasons. : Byrne J. Supreme Court, Victoria, Commercial & Equity Div. at Melbourne. 16th May 2003.

Peterson Farms Inc v C & M Farming Ltd [2004] EWHC 121 (Comm) Challenge s67 Jurisdiction. ICC arbitration : supply of diseased poultry : question relates to whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to address claims by related companies in the C&M group or whether claims were limited to C&M. This in turn turned on whether Arkansas Law applied. Held : C&M the only party to the reference. Related awards struck out. Mr Justice Langley. 4th February 2004.

Peterson Farms v C & M Farming Ltd [2003] EWHC 2298 (Comm) Security s70 re s67 application : security for appeal. S70(7) AA 1996 : Application for an order that any money payable under the award shall be brought into court or otherwise secured pending the determination of the application or appeal, re an ICC award. Application for posting of security in order to appeal refused. Court held that it would only order security as a precondition to a s67 jurisdiction challenge where it was established that the challenge was flimsy, which in this case it was not. Mr Justice Tomlinson. 5th September 2003.

Petroleo Brasiliero SA v Mellitus Shipping Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 418 Stay to arbitration s9. Part 20 defendants to a charter party action cannot seek a stay on grounds of arbitration clause in bills of lading. Court had the jurisdiction over the action to which they could be validly enjoined. Potter LJ; Sedley LJ; Jonathan Parker LJ. 29th March 2001.

Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras [2004] EWHC 127 (Comm) Good faith negotiation clause. Whether or not the contract contained a good faith negotiation – if so was it breached – and potential consequence. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 2nd February 2004.

Petroships Pte Ltd Singapore v. Petec Trading & Investment Corp Vietnam [2001] EWHC Comm 418 Challenge s68 & s70(4) AA 1996 : Challenge s69(2). Issue : Did the tribunal provide a sufficiently reasoned award in respect of a claim of frustration to enable the court to conduct a s69 examination of the point of law? On a separate issue one aspect of the award remitted to the tribunal for clarification pending a s69 trial. Mr Justice Cresswell. 22nd May 2001.

Pheonix Shipping Ltd v General Feeds Inc [1997] EWCA Civ 1476 Extention of time : s27 Arbitration Act 1950. Extension granted by a "whisker". Authorities reviewed. Potter LJ; Mummery LJ. 22nd April 1997.

Phillips Petroleum Company United Kingdom Ltd v Enron Europe Ltd [1996] EWCA Civ 693 Reasonable endeavours. Court withdrew a declaration that financial interests could not be taken into account when determining what was reasonable in respect of a commissioning event for a plant under the terms of the contract. Assessment is not limited to technical limitations alone. Kenney LJ; Potter LJ; Sir John Balcombe. 10th October, 1996

Phoenix Finance Ltd. v Federation Internationale De L\'Automobile [2002] EWHC 1028 (Ch) S9 AA 1996 : Stay to arbitration & s44 relief : injunction. Dispute about entitlement to take part in Grand Prix racing – following winding up proceedings and a tribunal ruling striking out eligibility of the Proust Team to compete. Multi-interest dispute – parties to relevant agreements including arbitration. Vice-Chancellor. 22nd May 2002.

Phoenix Shipping (Pty) Ltd v General Feeds Inc [1997] EWCA Civ 1476 Extension of time s27 AA 1950. Extension granted by a \"whisker\". Authorities reviewed. Potter LJ; Mummery LJ. 22nd April 1997.

Plymouth v DR Jones (Yeovil) Ltd [2005] EWHC 2356 (TCC) Challenge s69 Point of Law. Challenge failed. Essentially the challenge was based on questions of fact not of law. HHJ Peter Coulson. 31st October 2005.

Premium Nafta Products Ltd v Fili Shipping Co Ltd [2007] UKHL 40 S7 AA 1996 : Separability : bribery. Whether, as a matter of construction, the arbitration clause is apt to cover the question of whether the contract was procured by bribery and secondly, whether it is possible for a party to be bound by submission to arbitration when he alleges that, but for the bribery, he would never have entered into the contract containing the arbitration clause. Hoffmann Lords Hope; Scott; Walker; 17th October 2007

Primetrade AG v Ythan Ltd [2005] EWHC 2399 (Comm) Challenge : s67. Existence of contract. Liability of holder of bill of lading for damage to vessel due to shipment of dangerous cargo. Mr Justice Aikens. Commercial Court. 1st November 2005.

Profilati Italia S.R.L. v. Painewebber International Futures Ltd. [2001] EWHC Comm 24 Challenge s68. Challenge made out of time : allegation that contrary to public policy the award was procured through non-disclosure of documents. Discusses scope of duty to disclose – targets concept of wrongful intentional non-disclosure and requirement of substantial injustice – neither of which were evident here. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 23rd January 2001.

Protech Projects Construction (Pty) Ltd. v Moh'd Abdulmohsin Al-Kharafi [2005] EWHC 2165 (Comm) Challenge : s68 serious irregularity on grounds of non-disclosure not established. CFA incorrectly described as an irregularity. No injustice. Mr Justice Langley. Commercial Court. 14th October 2005.

R Durtnell & Sons Ltd v Secretary of State for Trade & Industry [2000] Lawtel AC7201065 Delay in prosecution : Action brought after 5 years, but before end of limitation period. Held : No inordinate delay in prosecution. QBD (TCC) HHJ John Toulmin QC. 26th May 2000.

R v V [2008] EWHC 1531 (Comm) Challenge to an award under section 68(2)(g) of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the grounds that the award is contrary to English public policy; and
a challenge to enforcement of the same award under section 81(1) (c) of the Act on the grounds that the award is contrary to public policy at common law. Mr Justice David Steel. 3rd July 2008.

Ravennavi Spa v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd [2006] EWHC 733 (Comm) Stay to arbitration s9. “An Entire agreement” contract which contained an arbitration clause replaced a prior agreement that contained a litigation clause. Application to serve out of jurisdiction withdrawn. Mrs Justice Gloster. 4th April 2006.

Ravennavi SPA v New Century Shipbuilding Company Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 58 Stay to arbitration s9. Appeal. Appeal failed . “The effect of an entire agreement clause of the kind to be found in Article XIX.4 of the two formal shipbuilding contracts executed in this case must depend primarily on its terms, since it is the language chosen by the parties to express their agreement (wherever it appears) which, construed in its proper context, provides the primary source of their intentions. It is for that reason that I am unable to accept the suggestion in the Buyer\'s skeleton argument that clauses of this kind can be construed by reference to their supposed purpose or that their significance is diminished if they are found among what are sometimes called the \"boilerplate\" provisions of a formal contract of this kind.” Tuckey LJ ; Jacob L:J ; Moore-Bick LJ. 7th February 2007.

Re Hawk Insurance Co Ltd (2000) LAWTEL AC0300220 An adjudication Scheme for dispute resolution does not oust the jurisdiction of the court and therefore does not infringe Art 6 Human Rights Convention. Chancery Div (Companies Ct): Arden. 24th January 2000


Regent Company v Ukraine 773/03 [2008] ECHR 254 Human Rights Art6. It is a breach of convention rights for a contracting state party to fail to honour an arbitration award. Peer Lorenzen, President. 3rd April 2008.

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 1468 Security of costs re s67 challenge. Application for security of costs in respect of challenges to jurisdiction s67 & s68 allegations of serious irregularity. Security set at £120K. Sir Anthony Clarke MR ; Rix LJ;Richards LJ; 9th November 2005.

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Inc [2006] EWHC 448 (Comm) Application to set aside : Arbitration Act s67. QBD. Commercial Division. Mr Justice David Steel : 3rd April 2006.

Republic of Kazakhstan v Istil Group Ltd. [2007] EWCA Civ 471 S67 AA 1996 : Set aside - appeal. Court at first instance had jurisdiction under s67 to determine whether or not an interim award be set aside – and or to certify right to appeal. CA does not have jurisdiction in absence of certification. Arden LJ; Longmore LJ; Toulson LJ. 25th April 2007.

Ron Jones (Burton-on-Trent) Ltd v Mrs JS & Mrs JD Hall [1998] EWCH 328 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. His Honour Judge Humphrey LLoyd QC. 7th April 1998.

Ronly Holdings Ltd. v JSC Zestafoni G Nikoladze Ferroalloy Plant [2004] EWHC 1354 (Comm) Challenges s67, 68, 69. Objective to recover an asserted $5M shortfall in an award. Court found that there was a shortfall which was immediately due : Issue not addressed in the arbitration. However, no serious irregularity established. Mr Justice Gross. 22nd June 2004.

Rotary Watches Ltd. v Rotary Watches (USA) Inc [2004] EWHC 90038 (Costs) Costs s63. Summary assessment of costs subsequent to dispute over the arbitrator’s costs award. Bitter protracted dispute where the claimant made a negligible recovery and where the defendant made a substantial recovery under a counterclaim (though a small percentage of the actual counterclaim) in circumstances where the counterclaim would not have been mounted were it not for the need to defend the action. £600K costs awarded to the respondent UK watchmaker. Cost Master Rodgers. 17th December 2004.

Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Plc v BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd [2008] EWHC 743 (Comm) s47 & s69 AA 1996. Leave to appeal : Rinsurance : LCIA arbitral award. Is leave required to appeal on a point of law regarding construction interpretation. Held : No. Mr Justice Walker : 15th April 2008

Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v. Hammond & Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd [2002] UKHL 14 Post arbitration architect sought contribution from contract. Held at first instance, CA & HL that the harm caused by the architect was quite distinct and separate from the later delivery harm of the contract. No contribution due. Lords Bingham ; Mackay; Steyn; Hope ; Rodger. 25th April 2002.

Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Pakistan Infrastructure Board [2007] EWHC 2602 (Comm) Fraud : enforcement of award: Application for summary judgment pursuant to a guarantee contract related to plant construction. Whether there was a reasonable prospect of defending the action on grounds that guarantee procured by fraud. Held : reasonable prospect. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 9th November 2007

Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd. v Pakistan [2002] EWCA Civ 1643 Enforcement. Sabah sought to enforce an award against the Government of Pakistan. The Government and its trading party sought to appeal the award and procured an indefinite injunction in Pakistan. English Court issued an injunction against those proceedings. Government had waived state immunity before the English Court. Upheld on appeal. Pill LJ; Waller LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. 14th November 2002.

Sawyer v Atari Interactive Inc [2005] EWHC 2351 (Ch) Stay to arbitration s9 : conflicts. Four contracts re publishing rights of computer games subject to arbitration – stay granted : remaining 4 contracts – court held proper law is English law not US and stay refused. Mr Justice Lawrence Collins. 1st November 2005.

Schuler (L) AG v Wickman Machine Tools Ltd [1973] UKHL 2 Arbitration : Special Case : Meaning of a condition : whether or not Principal could terminate agency arrangement for failure to strictly comply with \"conditions\" viz 6 weekly visits to specified customers. Held : Not a condition - repudiation a breach of contract. Lords Reid ; Morris ; Wilberforce; Simon; Kilbrandon. 4th April 1973


Sea Trade Maritime Corp v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Assoc (Bermuda) Ltd [2006] EWHC 2530 (Comm) Challenge s67-69. Application to set aside interim award for jurisdiction / serious irregularity & whether as a point of law rules were incorporated into the arbitration agreement. Mr Justice Langley. 18th October 2006.

Sea Trade Maritime Corp v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Assoc (Bermuda) Ltd. [2006] EWHC 578 (Comm) Costs : Reservation to subsequent award. Where a tribunal reserves costs to a subsequent award it deals with the matter (s47) so that the provisions of s57 do not come into play. MR. JUSTICE CHRISTOPHER CLARKE : Commercial Court. 24th February 2006.

Sealand Housing Corporation v Siemens AG [2002] EWCA Civ 1145 Challenge s68 : Party ignored arbitration initially then at last minute tried to introduce a counter claim and jurisdictional challenge. Arbitrators refused to entertain the new material. Held : Challenge failed. Sir Andrew Morritt VC; Rix LJ. 22nd July 2002.

SEB Trygg Holding Aktiebolag v Manches [2005] EWHC 35 (Comm) Preliminary issues s45. 20 preliminary issues submitted to the court for determination. Mrs Justice Gloster. 20th January 2005.

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Bairstow [2003] EWCA Civ 321 Evidence : Admissibility of an unrelated arbitral award as evidence of comparable rent. In Land Securities plc v Westminster City Council [1993] 1 WLR 286 the issue was whether an earlier arbitration award was admissible in later proceedings for the determination of a fair market rent. Hoffmann J applied the principle so as to exclude an earlier arbitration award. At p.288 he said: \"An arbitration award, on the other hand, is an arbitrator\'s opinion, after hearing the evidence before him, of the rent at which the premises could reasonably have been let. The letting is hypothetical, not real. It is therefore no direct evidence of what was happening in the market. It is the arbitrator\'s opinion of what would have happened. In principle the judgment, verdict or award of another tribunal is not admissible evidence to prove a fact in issue or a fact relevant to the issue in other proceedings between different parties. The leading authority for that proposition is Hollington v F. Hewthorn & Co. Ltd [1943] KB 587, in which a criminal conviction for careless driving was held inadmissible as evidence of negligence in a subsequent civil action. There has been criticism of this decision, and important exceptions have since been created by statute, notably in the Civil Evidence Act 1968, but none of them would apply here.\" VC. Potter LJ;Hale LJ. 11th March 2003.

Secretary of State for Transport v Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd [2006] EWHC 2756 (TCC) Disclosure – 3rd party. Application for disclosure against a non-party in support of litigation post arbitration. In the circumstances whilst early disclosure might be beneficial to the applicant, disclosure would be made in due course but there was no compelling reason why the applicant should benefit from early disclosure given the cost that would be involved in double disclosure. Mr Justice Jackson. 23rd October 2006.

Sembawang Corp Ltd v Pacific Ocean Shipping Corp [2004] EWHC 2743 (Comm) Challenge fact or law : Arbitration Act 1950. Complaint was that the arbitrators finding that an owner who had lawfully terminated a ship conversion contract had not mitigated his losses by choosing a British and not a Singapore yard to complete the work. Held : Question of fact viz was there legally adequate mitigation , not law viz what is the lawful definition of mitigation. Challenge failed. Mr Justice Gross. 25th November 2004.

Sheffield United Football Club Ltd v West Ham United Football Club Plc [2008] EWHC 2855 (Comm) Application by the Claimant, Sheffield United, for an interim order restraining the Defendant, West Ham, from taking any further steps to pursue an appeal or challenge to an award made by an arbitral tribunal in England other than by way of an application to this Court under the Arbitration Act 1996. Application by West Ham seeking a stay of Sheffield United\'s application. Mr Justice Teare. 26th November 2008

Sheltam Rail Company (Proprietary) Ltd v Mirambo Holdings Ltd [2008] EWHC 829 (Comm) Notice of discontinuance of challenge to arbitration. New York Convention Award outside UK. Challenge to discontinuance to prevent outstanding issues before English Court being used as a ground for resisting enforcement abroad. Held : Discontinuance permitted subject to assurance that the ground would not be relied upon to prevent foreign enforcing court obtaining jurisdiction. Mr Justice Aikins. 21st April 2008.

Shirley Sloan P/L v Merril Holdings P/L t/as Airen Constructions [2000] WASC 99 Arbitration - Conduct of arbitration proceedings - Breach of rules of natural justice - Whether Court should exercise discretion under Commercial Arbitration Act 1985, s 42(1) to set award aside for misconduct - Applicant may have been materially unjustly prejudiced - Award set aside - Turns on own facts. Steytler J. Supreme Court, Western Australia 18th April 2000

Shuttari v Solicitors\' Indemnity Fund [2007] EWCA Civ 244 Challenge s68. Failed appeal against a failed application under s68 to set aside an arbitral award. Having invoked the arbitral procedure there was no case to challenge jurisdiction. Waller LJ; Sedley LJ. 21st March 2007.

Siboti K/S v BP France SA [2003] EWHC 1278 (Comm) Jurisdiction - incorporation. Reaffirmed that express wording in a bill of lading is required to incorporate arbitration clause into a bill of lading. The Merak, The Varenna and The Federal Bulker applied. Refusal to enforce arbitration award. Mr Justice Gross. 11th June 2003.

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd [2006] EWHC 3003 (TCC) Challenge s69. Substance of both grounds of appeal are based on findings of fact and causation – not law. Upheld clarity of award – appeal failed. HHJ Peter Coulson QC. 22nd November 2006.

Sinclair v Woods of Winchester Ltd. [2005] EWHC 1631 (QB) Serious irregularity : Application to remove arbitrator failed. s24 & 68 Arbitration Act 1996. HHJ Peter Coulson. 14th July 2005.

Soleimany v Soleimany [1998] EWCA Civ 285 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. Morritt LJ; Waller LJ; Sir Christopher Staughton. CA. 19th February 1998.

Sonatrach Petroleum Corporation (BVI) v Ferrell International Ltd [2001] EWHC 481 (Comm) Stay s9 AA 1996 of certain claims. Twin track resolution process : certain claims subject to English Law & Jurisdiction : others to Japanese arbitration. Stay granted regarding those subject to Japanese arbitration. Mr Justice Colman. 4th October 2001.

South Tyneside v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd. [2004] EWHC 2428 (Comm) Disclosure. Rent Arbitration : In effort to obtain evidence of a comparable rents B&Q (competitors of Wickes) were ordered to disclose the rent (subject to a confidentiality clause) they pay on a nearby property. B&Q successfully sought to have the order set aside. The arbitrators could access alternative information in order to establish a comparator. Mr Justice Gross. 4th November 2004.

Ssanyong Motor Distributors Ltd v Daewoo Cars Ltd & Daewoo Corp (1999) Lawtel Stay of action pending issue of Korean award. No reason to impugn the tribunal which was provided for by choice of law & arbitration clause. Wright J. 23rd April. 1999.

Stanley Cole (Wainfleet) Ltd. v Sheridan [2003] EWCA Civ 1046 Legal expertise of arbiter : Can an arbiter rely on a precedent not put to the parties? Yes providing it does not lead to severe injustice. Ward LJ; Buxton LJ; Mance LJ; 25th July 2003


Stansell Ltd v Co-Operative Group (CWS) Ltd [2005] EWHC 1601 (Ch) CRS business transferred to CWS. Successful appeal against interim award on jurisdiction based on existence of a contract : Prohibition against assignment upheld. HHJ Blackburne. 22nd July 2005.

Stanton v Callaghan [1998] EWCA Civ 1176 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. Nourse LJ; Otton LJ; Chadwick LJ. 8th July 1998.

Starlight Shipping Co v Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd., Hubei Branch [2007] EWHC 1893 (Comm) Anti-suit injunction application in support of arbitration. Mr Justice Cooke. 1st August 2007

Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Sulpicio Lines Inc [2008] EWHC 914 (Comm) Anti-suit injunction : P&I cover provided subject to rules, London Arbitration & Jurisidction. Club cancelled membership for breaches of rules - ending cover for two vessels that were lost : Sulpicio commenced action in Phillipines court alleging breach of contract & fraud. Injunction granted. Mr Justice Walker. 4th April 2008

Stern Settlement v Levy [2007] EWHC 1187 (TCC) Challenge s68 / s69 : Challenged failed on both grounds : Where a term of a contract led to two potential, though equally imperfect interpretations, the arbitrator is legally entitled to chose one over the other. In addition, the consequence did not affect the outcome. The arbitrator afforded every opportunity to the party to address the disputed issue. HHJ Peter Coulson. 11th May 2007

Stretford v Football Association Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 238 Appeal rejected : No breach of Article VI HRA. in refering a disciplinary dispute subject to the Association's well known rules to arbitration. CA : Sir Anthony Clarke MR. Waller LJ; Sedley LJ. 21st March 2007

Stretford v Football Association Ltd [2006] EWHC 479 (Ch) Arbitration agreement amounts to a wiaver of Art 6 Right to a public trial. Sir Andrew Morrit. Chancery. 17th March 2006.

Sukuman Ltd v The Commonwealth Secretariat [2006] EWHC 304 (Comm) s69 Arbitration Act 1996 : Contractual term excluding appeal not contrary to Human Rights Act. HHJ Colman. Commercial Court. 27th February 2006.

Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA Civ 1148 S67 AA 1996 challenge. President of tribunal not correctly appointed and safety procedures required to protect the interests of claimant’s overridden (CS were solely responsible for appointments) – it was not possible at the time for this to be discovered by the applicant. Award unenforceable. Sir Anthony Clarke ; Waller LJ; Sedley LJ. 15th November 2007

Sumukan Ltd v Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWHC 188 (Comm) Challenge s67-68. Failed challenge to arbitral award – both with regard to jurisdiction and apparent bias. Toulson J. 14th February 2007.

Sumukan Ltd. v The Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA Civ 243 Human Rights. Whether an agreement to exclude an appeal is contrary to Human Rights. Appeal failed. Waller LJ; Sedley LJ. 21st March 2007.

Sun Life Assurance Co Canada v CX Reinsurance Co Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 283 S9 AA 1996 : appeal against refusal to grant stay. Appeal against a refusal to grant a stay on the grounds that there was no arbitration agreement. Whilst there was by mutual agreement an oral agreement, a written treaty was never concluded between the parties. Appeal failed. CA on appeal from QBD (Moore Bick J) : held at first instance and here confirmed that the original agreement was a nullity and hence there was nothing to stay to arbitration. Potter LJ; Carnwath LJ; Mr Justice Lawrence Collins. 6th March 2003.

Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Co [2004] EWCA Civ 1660 Applicability of the findings of an arbitration between A & B to a subsequent arbitration between B &C where disclosure of the first award was not objected to. Held : Not applicable or binding. CA. Mance LJ; Longmore LJ; Jacob LJ. 10th December 2004.

Surefire Systems Ltd v Guardian ECL Ltd [2005] EWHC 1860 (TCC) Appeal - fact or law? s69 Arbitration Act 1996. Mr Justice Jackson. TCC. 10th August 2005.

Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Government of Lithuania [2005] EWHC 9 (Comm) Challenge s103 : state immunity : New York Convention. Lithuania took part in an arbitration in Denmark. They objected to jurisdiction. The tribunal made a preliminary ruling in favour of jurisdiction which Lithuania did not object to. The successful claimants secured an enforcement judgement in England. Lithuania here seeks to set aside enforcement on the grounds of State Immunity. Held : Whilst in usual circumstances this would amount to an issue estoppel, evidence that the tribunal’s determination was not final and binding under Danish Law meant that Lithuania could still rely on state immunity. Teare QC Nigel 2005.01.11

Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Lithuania [2005] EWHC 2437 (Comm) Conflicts : State Immunity. Lithuania took part in an arbitration in respect of an exploration venture defending a claim for damages in relation to the issuing of licences. The arbitral tribunal held that the State was a party to the arbitration agreement. Enforcement action in England unsuccessfully resisted on grounds of state immunity. Mrs Justice Gloster. 4th November 2005.

Svenska Petroleum Exploration AB v Lithuania [2006] EWCA Civ 1529 Personality. Was the State of Lithuania a party to a commercial contract and an arbitration agreement : appeal against an enforcement of award action. In the circumstances State was a party. Award enforceable. Sir Anthony Clarke MR –Scott Baker LJ. Moore-Bick LJ. 13th November 2006.

Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA (Capaz Duckling) [2007] EWHC 1630 (Comm) s44 Arbitration Act application for world-wide freezing order. Mr Justice David Steel. 11th July 2007

Syska v Vivendi Universal SA & Ors [2008] EWHC 2155 (Comm) s67 Application to set aside award on the grounds that under the governing law the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal was revoked upon the defendant entering into bankruptcy. Application failed. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 2nd October 2008

Syska v Vivendi Universal SA [2008] EWHC 2155 (Comm) Jurisdiction and bankruptcy : \"Art 142 [Arbitration clause]. Any arbitration clause concluded by the bankrupt shall lose its legal effect as at the date bankruptcy is declared and any pending arbitration proceedings shall be discontinued.\" Impact of this provision. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 2nd October 2008.

Tajik Aluminium Plant (TadAZ) v Hydro Aluminium AS & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 1218 S43 AA 1996 : witness summons. CA on appeal from Chancery (Mr Justice Mann) : Lower court set aside witness summons orders – confirmed on appeal. The documents that the appellant wanted disclosed were not described in a sufficiently narrow or specific manner to justify the order. Rix LJ; Maurice Kay LJ; Moore-Bick LJ. 24th October 2005.

Tame Shipping Ltd v Easy Navigation Ltd [2004] EWHC 1862 (Comm) Confidential reasons : Privileged status and irregularity. Piercing the veil. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 28th July 2004

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v St-Cms Electric Company Private Ltd [2007] EWHC 1713 (Comm) Application s72 AA 1996 for declaration that a tribunal had jurisdiction over a dispute. Conflicts - whether English or Indian law applies. Mr Justice Cooke. 16th July 2007

Tavoulareas v Tsavliris [2003] EWHC 550 (Comm) Forum Conveniens : Salvage Lloyds Open Form – London arbitration and English Law. The Claimant\\\'s action should be stayed. The default judgment must be set aside as obtained in circumstances where the Greek Court was already seised of the dispute.Mr Justice Tomlinson. 21st March 2003.

Tavoulareas v Tsavliris [2004] EWCA Civ 48 Forum Conveniens appeal. Salvage Lloyds Open Form – London arbitration and English Law. Failure to demonstrate that Greek law and jurisdiction applied. Article 21 Brussels Convention. Freedom to forum shop by seeking negative declaratory relief is inherent in the European Court of Justice\'s decisions in Gubisch v. Palumbo (Case 144/86), The Tatry and Maciej Rataj (Case 406/92) [1995] 1 Ll.R. 302 and, most recently, Erich Gasser GmbH v. Misat Srl (C-116/02), where the court declined to reconsider its previous jurisprudence in this regard. Thorpe LJ; Mance LJ ; Mr Justice Evans-Lombe. 5th February 2004.

Taylor Woodrow Construction v RMD Kwikform Ltd [2008] EWHC 825 (TCC) s014, 32. 45 AA 1996 Challenge : Appointment. Whether a valid notice of arbitration given : unilateral appointment contrary to contract provisions. The so called notice was not unequivocal – a mere enquiry as to whether the other party would insist on arbitration – so arbitration process not commenced – 14 day period to agree appointment not triggered – so unilateral appointment invalid. Mr Justice Ramsey. 17th April 2008

Taylor Woodrow Holdings Ltd v George Wimpey Southern Counties Ltd Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 1693 (TCC) s45 Arbitration Act : Whether or not court should answer a question of law. Mr Justice Jackson. TCC. 3rd July 2006

Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2008] EWHC 843 (Comm) s69 AA Challenge. while the approach of the Arbitrator was not justified, on the proper construction of the Binder, Temple is not entitled to conduct the run-off. Accordingly, notwithstanding the reasoning, the Arbitrator\'s decision was correct. The question of law is thus determined in favour of QBE, and this appeal is dismissed. Mr Justice Beatson. 23rd April 2008

Thames Valley Power Ltd. v Total Gas & Power Ltd. [2005] EWHC 2208 (Comm) Meaning of Dispute : Stay to Expert Determination or summary judgment. Mr Justice Clarke. QBD. Commercial Court. 27th September 2005.

Three 3C Waste Ltd v Mersey Waste Holdings Ltd [2006] EWHC 2598 (Comm) Declarations. Applications for declarations in respect of recovery of certain costs – in support of arbitration. Mr Justice David Steel. 24th October 2006

Through Transport Mutual Ins. Assoc (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Ass. Assoc. Co Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1598 Stay to arbitration upheld : Foreign Anti-Suit injunction lifted. CA. LCJ; Clarke LJ; Rix LJ. 2nd December 2004

Through Transport Mutual Ins. Ltd v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2003] EWHC 3158 (Comm) Stay to arbitration s9 : anti-suit injunction. Declaration that there was a valid arbitration agreement : anti-suit against Finnish litigation. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 18th December 2003.

Through Transport Mutual Ins. Ltd. v New India Assurance Co Ltd. [2005] EWHC 455 (Comm) Appointment application s18. Defendant was committed to litigation in Finland. The applicant sought assistance to appoint an arbitrator, reinforced by a CA finding that they had a right to arbitrate. Court acceded to the request to appoint. The objective of the applicant was to establish by arbitration that it was not liable to the defendant. If it did so it would use s66 to affirm that absence of liability. If that conflicted with any Finnish Court ruling then the courts would have to deal with that matter when the time arose. This was a distinct possibility given differences between English and Finnish Law. Mr Justice Moore-Bick. 21st March 2005.

Thyssen Canada Ltd. v Mariana Maritime SA [2005] EWHC 219 (Comm) Challenge s69 : s68 Serious Irregularity. Claim for cargo damage by fire. S80(5) extension of time in respect of s70(3) 28 day time limit to appeal. Tribunal found that no evidence of unseaworthiness. During the arbitration the claimants had alleged either unseaworthiness or deliberate fire to claim a ctl. They now sought to establish that the loss was due to sparks from hot works and alleged the owners lied about their speculated reasons for the fire, viz a discarded cigarette by a stevedore. Held : Whether or not hot works caused the fire is no longer relevant. Should have been adduced before tribunal. Appellants had not established that the owners had lied or deceived the tribunal. Challenge an abuse of process. No extension of time given. Mr Justice Cooke. 23rd February 2005.

Tongyuan (USA) International trading Group v Uni-Clan Ltd (2001) Lawtel AC0100770 s103 AA 1996. New York Convention enforcement application. Change of venue for arbitration where no prejudice caused & unusual format of award not grounds to refuse enforcement. Moore Bick J. 19th January 2001.

Tonicstar Ltd. v American Home Assurance Co [2004] EWHC 1234 (Comm) Conflicts : jurisdiction. Court held that questions as to the jurisdiction, applicable law and seat of an arbitration should be determined by an English Court not a US Court and that further proceedings in a US arbitration should continue to be injuncted – anti-suit against US litigation of a cause already before English Court. Mr Justice Morison. 26th May 2004.

Torch Offshore Llc v Cable Shipping Inc. [2004] EWHC 787 (Comm) Challenge s68 serious irregularity s69 point of law. Vessel chartered for pipe laying was not able to support the necessary tackle without reinforcement. Damages awarded to cover cost of reinforcement and 11 days lost time. Did the arbitrator fail to deal with issue of cancellation on grounds of innocent misrepresentation or get the law wrong? Held : No on both accounts. Challenge failed. Mr Justice Cooke. 7th April 2004.

Tradigrain v State Trading Corporation of India [2005] EWHC 2206 (Comm) Challenge s69 point of law. Tribunal erred in finding that a seller is not entitled to immediate repayment of excessive monies drawn down on a bond, in the absence of proof that it is the seller and not an intermediary bank, that is out of monies. There was no need to make a Trust Order in respect of the repayment proceeds. Order that award be redrafted to order immediate payment. Challenge to jurisdiction rejected since parties had taken part without objecting. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 19th October 2005.

Travelers Casualty & Surety Co Europe Ltd v Sun Life Ass Co Canada [2004] EWHC 1704 (Comm) Forum conveniens. Range of claimants in EU, US & Canada. Application to stay English action to Canada. Some of the policies contained arbitration clauses in respect of US and Canada – others did not. Events all occurred in England. Most evidence to be adduced from England but significant evidence due from Canada. On a balance, England the appropriate forum, in absence of clear choice of law and forum. Stay refused. Jonathan Hirst QC. 16th July 2004.

Tsavliris Salvage (International) Ltd v The Grain Board of Iraq [2008] EWHC 612 (Comm) s67 Challenge : No arbitration agreement : State Immunity. Mr Justice Gross. 1st April 2008

TTMI Ltd of England v ASM Shipping Ltd of India [2005] EWHC 2666 (Comm) Freezing order. Application to freeze funds from 1st award pending outcome of a counterclaim in a subsequent arbitration refused. Shipowners entitled to freight earned. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. Commercial Court. 23rd November 2005

Turner v Stevenage Borough Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1184 Removal of arbitrator. Arbitrator wrote inviting parties to agree to interim payments, in particular to provide for specialist advice. One party refused and applied for removal. Held : Interim payments are sensible for protracted arbitrations but should be part of engagement contract. Here a mere request was no ground for removal – made to both parties. No prejudice. Staughton LJ; Pill LJ; Mummery LJ. 6th March 1997.

TWTT SA v Bangladesh Biman Corporation [1998] EWCA Civ 1807 Jurisdiction : Curial Law. Costs of determining the issue borne by the successful party that instigated the hearing. Morritt LJ; Waller LJ. 19th November 1998.

Ultraframe (UK) Ltd, R (on the application of) v Central Arbitration Committee [2005] EWCA Civ 560 Jurisdiction : Did the Central Arbitration Committee have the power to order a fresh ballot of union members? Yes. Buxton LJ; Maurice Kay LJ; Sir Martin Nourse. 22nd April 2005.

Underwriting Members of Lloyd\'s Syndicate 980 v Sinco SA [2008] EWHC 1842 (Comm) Conflicts : Insurance dispute between underwriters and brokers : Actions in Greeece & UK. Claim for damages for breach of english jurisdiction clause by commencing action in Greece. Mr Justice Beatson 29th July 2008.

Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank Plc [2007] EWHC 1151 (Comm) Whether or not a claim fraudulent and consequent award gave rise to restitution for unjust enrichment. Mr Justice David Steel. 15th May 2007

VAI Industries (UK) Ltd. v Bostock & Bramley [2003] EWCA Civ 1069 Limitation - Statutory : accrual of action : Did time run from date of dispatch FOB - or was it modified by terms of warranty - including the warranty on faulty replacement parts : Held : Time barred re initial consignment - but replacement part warranty within time - second issue to go to trial. Ward LJ; Carnwath LJ; Mr Justice Newman. 23rd July 2003

Vale Do Rio Doce Navegacao SA v Shanghai Bao Steel Ocean Shipping Co Ltd. [2000] EWHC 205 (Comm) Personality : Brokers purported to conclude a contract of affreightment with the ship owners on behalf of Bao Steel. Two voyages followed. Bao disavowed themselves of the contract. Vale wished to arbitrate claims against Bao and the brokers as co-defendants and unsucessfully applied for a high court declaration that Bao were parties to the arbitration. Under Lugano claim had to be litigated in Norway. Commercial Court. Mr Justice Thomas. 14th April 2000

Van Der Giessen-De-Noord Shipbuiilding Division BV v Imtech Marine & Offshore BV [2008] EWHC 2904 (Comm) s68 Arbitration Act 1996. Adequacy of reasons. Set aside application. Partially successful. Only two arbitrators appointed. No umpire. Order for appointment of umpire to reconsider the matters set aside. Mr Justice Christopher Clarke. 26th November 2008.

Van Mellaert v Oxford University [2006] EWHC 1565 (QB) Phd Viva challenge - fairness. Mr Justice Gray. 29th June 2006

Veba Oil Supply & Trading GmbH v Petrotrade Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1832 The test for deciding whether an expert has materially departed from his instructions.Simon Brown LJ; Tuckey LJ; Dyson LJ. 6th December 2001

Veba Oil Supply & Trading GmbH v Petrotrade Inc [2001] EWCA Civ 1832 FOB – expert determination - Whether pre-loading certificate final and binding. Whether wrong test applied. Held : Wrong method of testing used. Certificate not binding. Simon Brown LJ; Tuckey LJ; Dyson LJ. 6th December 2001

Villani v Delstrat P/L [2002] WASC 112 Commercial arbitration - Application to set aside award - Misconduct by arbitrator - Failure to determine all issues in dispute - Whether such failure amounts to misconduct - Duty to give reasons - Application to remove arbitrator - No moral turpitude or bias. McKechnie J. Supreme Court Western Australia. 16th May 2002.

Vitol SA v Capri Marine Ltd [2008] EWHC 378 (Comm) Service out of jurisdiction refused for an order persuant to CPR 71.2 which provides, so far as material: \'[(1) A judgment creditor may apply for an order requiring— ... (b) if a judgment debtor is a company or other corporation, an officer of that body, to attend court to provide information about—(i) the judgment debtor\'s means; or (ii) any other matter about which information is needed to enforce a judgment or order.\' Tomlinson J. 29th February 2008.


W G Birch Construction Ltd v Chaddington Property & Development Co Ltd [1997] EWCA Civ 2779 Partial stay to arbitration. Complex situation where some issues and claims subject to litigation : whilst a separate category of claims were covered by arbitration provisions for which a stay was granted and maintained by the CA. Beldam LJ; Hutchison LJ; Mummery LJ. 20th November, 1997

Warborough Investments Ltd. v S.Robinson & Sons (Holdings) Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 751 Impropriety : Arbitrator used professional knowledge : test substantial injustice. Distinguishes between personal knowledge of facts and personal experience. Challenge Failed. CA before Clarke LJ; Jonathan Parker LJ. 10th June 2003.

Warborough Investments Ltd. v S.Robinson & Sons (Holdings) Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 751 Challenge s68 : Serious Irregularity : Different means of assessement applied not suggested by parties : Whether arbitrator used his own experties. Clarke LJ; Jonathan Parker LJ : 10th June 2003

Wealands v CLC Contractors Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1922 Stay to arbitration : s9 : Review of relevant law before confirming stay. Ensured that all liked disputes before same tribunal. Nourse LJ; Mantell LJ; Mance LJ. 22nd July 1999.

Weissfisch v Julius [2006] EWCA Civ 218 Jurisdiction : Unsuccessful appeal against refusal of application for an interim order to stay arbitral jurisdiction hearing. Arbitration agreement - seat - Switzerland : Swiss choice of Law : Kompetenze/Kompetenze. CA. LCJ; MR. Moses LJ. 8th March 2006

Weldon Plant Ltd v Commission for New Towns [2000] EWHC TCC 76 Jurisdiction : Overheads and profits an element within the arbitrators jurisdiction : arbitrator erred by not making an allowance in that regard. HHJ Humphrey Lloyd. 14th July 2000

Welex A.G. v Rosa Maritime Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 938 Jurisdiction : 1st instance decision that a bill of lading contained an arbitration clause : NYCEAA applied : anti-suit injunction against Polish proceedings. Appeal rejected. Brooke LJ; May LJ; Tuckey LJ. 3rd July 2003.

Welex AG v Rosa Maritime Ltd. [2002] EWHC 762 (Comm) Arbitration clause - whether incorporated from charterparty into bill of lading : Held : Yes. Mr Justice David Steel. 25th April 2002

West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta Spa [2005] EWHC 454 (Comm) S9 AA 1996 : Stay to arbitration – injunctive anti-suit relief. Contract substantively subject to Italian Law. Arbitration – London subject to English Law and jurisdiction. Arbitration virtually complete. Syracuse litigation commenced, hearings scheduled several months away. Under Italian law subrogation did not extend to arbitration – thus the arbitration would be ignored in Italy. Court concluded that this was an appropriate case for an anti-suit order.Mr Justice Coleman. 21st March 2005

West Tankers Inc v. RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA [2007] UKHL 4 Stay : Restraining order and EC Law in support of arbitration. Whether or not it was inline with EC Regulation 44/2001 to restrain a party from pursuing litigation before the court of a member state was in question. House of Lords felt it was but that a reference to the ECJ was justifiable since matter not entirely clear. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead : Lord Steyn : Lord Hoffmann : Lord Rodger of Earlsferry : Lord Mance. 21st February 2007

Westacre Investments Inc v Jugoimport-SDRP Holding Co Ltd [1999] EWCA Civ 1401 Order for enforcement of New York award appealed : Alleged underlying contract induced by bribery. Swiss Arbitration considered and rejected the allegation. CA. Refused to take the bribery point and rejected the appeal. Waller LJ; Mantell LJ; Sir David Hirst. 12th May 1999.

Westacre Investments Inc v The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR [2008] EWHC 801 (Comm) Time bar : Garnishee Order : Chasing enforcement of arbitral award around the world seeking funds to attach : Whether court would enforce action after 6 years from judgement date : Discretion of court : No extension if claimant sits on his rights - but if he continually attempts enforcement, albeit unsuccessfully - court will extend time. Decision necessary to enable Singapore Court to enforce a UK judgment under reciprocal arrangements. Mr Justice Tomlinson. 21st April 2008.

Wetherspoon JD Plc v Jay Mar Estates [2007] EWHC 856 (TCC) Challenge s68 : Expertise : Rent review : Had arbitrator erred in not giving an opportunity to the parties to address what arbitrator had discovered by viewing the property? By adopting a valuation process not put by either party was there an irregularity? Held : No - had to use his expertise - parties had opportunity to put forward their cases. HHJ Peter Coulson QC. 4th April 2007.

White Young Green Consulting v Brooke House Sixth Form College [2007] EWHC 2018 (TCC) s69 Challenge to interim award : Terms of management contract - interpretation : whether a lump sum - whether additional fees recoverable for variation : 11 grounds of appeal rejected. Canvassed whether point of law of general importance and criteria for appeal - plus what documents could be referred to. Mr Justice Ramsey : TCC. 22nd May 2007.

Whiting v Halverson [2003] EWCA Civ 403 Stay to arbitration : s9. Ex member of club bound by club rules : dispute stayed to arbitration. CA. Schiemann LJ; Brooke LJ. 6th March 2003.

William John Dolan t/a WJ Dolan Construction v Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2000) 2044 GILE 3131 Slip Rule : s57 Arbitration Act 1996 or serious irregularity - s68. Gillen J : QBD High Court. Northern Irelan. 20th January 2000.

X Ltd v Y Ltd [2005] EWHC 769 Jurisdiction : Scope : Was the subject matter of a dispute within the scope of the arbitration jurisdiction clause? Mr Justice Jackson. 22nd March 2005

Youell v La Reunion Aerienne [2008] EWHC 2493 (Comm) Jurisdiction challenges : Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 : Arbitration Clause. Whether insurance placed partly in France & partly in England subject to Englsh or French terms and whether French arbitration clause implied into English Policy. Mr Justice Tomlinson. 22nd October 2008.

Yukos Oil Company v Dardana Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 543 Enforcement of foreign arbitral award / security of costs : Swedish award currently being challenged in Sweden : CA held enforcement stayed pending outcom of Swedish proceedings. Security order discharged. CA. Thorpe LJ; Mance LJ; Neuberger LJ. 18th April 2002.


 
     
       
Top of page
 
       
      THE NATIONWIDE ACADEMY FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION (UK) Ltd.
     

 
    Copyright © NADR 2000, all rights reserved.