header-logo header-logo

12 August 2010
Issue: 7430 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

Chalbury McCouat International Ltd v P.G. Foils Ltd [2010] EWHC 2050 (TCC), [2010] All ER (D) 34 (Aug)

When parties agreed to arbitrate, the court should strive to give effect to that intention and should seek to support the arbitral process. Where there was an arbitration clause, it was not any part of the court’s function to designate or determine the seat of arbitration.

That was a matter which, if disputed by the parties, would have to be determined by the arbitral tribunal once appointed. Although there was no statutory guidance as to the degree or type of connection required under s 2(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996, a party should not generally bring proceedings in relation to an arbitration except in the courts of the jurisdiction of the seat of arbitration. Further, there would be sufficient “connection” if the proper law of the contract was English law.

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

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott—Kevin Joynes & Neil Gosling

Clarke Willmott bolsters housebuilder expertise in Birmingham

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Carpmaels & Ransford—Kevin Cordina

Firm adds former Simmons Simmons patent head to engineering and tech team

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

ACTAPS—Sally Goodger

Freeths strengthens its voice in national disputes with ACTAPS committee appointment

NEWS
Some employment law controversies never disappear—they merely lie dormant
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming legal practice, but its successful adoption depends as much on culture as technology
The fallout from Lord Mandelson’s appointment and dismissal as UK ambassador to Washington raises profound questions about constitutional governance, accountability and political appointments
Pastries may be in the firing line while kebabs escape scrutiny, but the reality is far more nuanced
The Supreme Court’s decision in Dillon highlights a central tension in modern public law: rights may be recognised without being fully realised
back-to-top-scroll