header-logo header-logo

03 August 2012
Issue: 7525 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

Johann MK Blumenthal GMBH & Co KG and another v Itochu Corp [2012] EWCA Civ 996, [2012] All ER (D) 240 (Jul)

Where s 18(5) of the Arbitration Act 1996 applied, the reference to “the court” meant the court at first instance, so that if permission to appeal was refused by the judge at first instance, the Court of Appeal could not itself grant permission to appeal. The policy of restricting appeals, found in s 18 of the Act, was deliberate. It reflected the underlying general principles, as to party autonomy and protection of the parties from unnecessary delay and expense, enshrined in ss 1(a) and 1(b) of the Act.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Sackers—Zak Ullah

Sackers—Zak Ullah

Sackers welcomes new associate

Christy Davies—Birmingham Law Society

Christy Davies—Birmingham Law Society

Ward Hadaway lawyer joins Birmingham Law Society Council

Ellisons—Stephanie Westwood & Anisa Khan

Ellisons—Stephanie Westwood & Anisa Khan

Ellisons expands Chelmsford commercial litigation team with two appointments

NEWS
Businesses incorporating open-source software into commercial products could face obligations to disclose valuable source code, with AI-assisted development making licensing risks harder to track
Careless client checks do not automatically make a solicitor dishonest, but deliberately avoiding confirmation of suspected wrongdoing can cross the line
Construction workers injured in comparable accidents can face sharply different routes to compensation on opposite sides of the Atlantic
Victims of undue influence may have more options than simply unwinding a tainted transaction, with courts able to order profits accounts, compensation and, exceptionally, severance
Disabled people could lose vital safeguards following the Supreme Court’s reversal of the Cheshire West test for deprivation of liberty, two barristers warn
back-to-top-scroll