- AA 1996, s 9(1)—what is the meaning of ‘in respect of a matter’? (Autoridad del Canal de Panamá v Sacyr & Ors)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this judgment?
- What was the background to the judgment?
- What issues were before the court?
- How did the court approach the AA 1996, s 9 application?
- Tanning Research Laboratories v O'Brien
- Tomolugen Holdings v Silica Investors
- Additional relevant authorities
- How did the court apply these principles on the facts?
- How did the court deal with the other applications?
- The claimant’s summary judgment application
- The defendants’ alternative discretionary case management stay application
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: In a complex dispute arising out of a Panama Canal engineering project, Mr Justice Blair in the English Commercial Court dismissed three applications: the claimant’s application for summary judgment that the defendants were liable to make repayment of advance payment guarantees on demand; the defendants’ application that the court should grant a mandatory stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) in the context of a claim brought under contracts which included exclusive jurisdiction clauses in favour of the English court; and, the defendants’ alternative application for a case management stay of the claimant’s claim before the English court pending determination of matters in related arbitration proceedings. The decision is of interest to practitioners for several reasons, including the court’s interpretation of the phrase ‘in respect of a matter’ found in AA 1996, s 9(1).
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial