- Court of Appeal upholds stay for arbitration, finding claim for relief under the Companies Act 2006 arbitrable (Bridgehouse (Bradford No 2) v BAE Systems)
- What are the key and practical implications of this case?
- What was decided and an overview of the judgment’s significance
- The implications of Bridgehouse
- The potential relevance of Family Mart China Holding
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Chancery Division that stayed, in favour of ad hoc arbitration, the appellant company’s claim for relief in accordance with section 1028(3) of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) (effect of administrative restoration). In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the scope of the arbitration clause in the relevant contract covered a claim for relief under that CA 2006, s 1028(3), and that the claim was arbitrable. The judgment is important due to its analysis of where the outer limits of arbitrability lie. Written by Angeline Welsh, barrister, at Essex Court.
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