header-logo header-logo

04 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

A Ltd v B Ltd [2014] EWHC 1870 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 219 (Jun)

Section 70(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 was primarily about the order in which a party could turn to an arbitral process and court proceedings. The essential policy was not to exclude the court process altogether, but to deal with the risk of concurrent proceedings in the court and the arbitral process. Section 70(2) barred a person’s access to the court only if and to the extent that he had himself limited access by vesting powers in an arbitral process whether by making an arbitration agreement or by participating in an arbitration. The natural implication of the Act was that s 70 of the Act governed all challenges under s 67 of the Act. The test whether an arbitral process was exhausted was flexible and fact-specific. 

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll