header-logo header-logo

Arbitration

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

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll