Legal News

AA 1996, s 9 application for stay dismissed due to no ‘arbitration agreement’ (IS Prime v TF Global Markets)

Published on: 11 December 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • AA 1996, s 9 application for stay dismissed due to no ‘arbitration agreement’ (IS Prime v TF Global Markets)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Arbitration analysis: Mr Justice Andrew Baker in the Commercial Court dismissed an application to stay litigation proceedings pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) pending the final written award in proceedings under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (the AAA Rules) on the ground that there was no arbitration agreement as between the parties. The dispute resolution clause in question provided that disputes shall be submitted ‘to non-binding arbitration’—therefore it did not provide for disputes to be determined by an individual or individuals, by whose decision and consequent award the parties agreed to be bound. Accordingly, the clause did not fall within AA 1996, s 6(1) definition of an arbitration agreement. Without a valid arbitration agreement as between the parties, there was no basis upon which to stay the proceedings. Written by Amy Cable, senior associate, at Ashurst LLP. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents