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

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen promotes five lawyers to the partnership

NEWS
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
Material obtained through US discovery applications may have a much longer legal life than many litigants realise
English courts are developing a distinctly practical approach to sanctions disputes arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
back-to-top-scroll