- LCIA tribunal had jurisdiction under two contracts by agreement in a third (Yegiazaryan v Smagin)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background to the jurisdiction challenge?
- The three agreements
- The LCIA arbitration
- What was the first instance decision?
- What were the grounds of appeal?
- What did the court decide on the late additional ground of appeal?
- What did the court decide about the wording of the arbitration agreement?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: The Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal against a decision under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), finding that unclear wording in an agreement between the parties amounted to an arbitration agreement and entitled the claimant to file a London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration against the respondent under two other agreements in which he was not himself named as a party. Where one party agrees that another may file an arbitration against him, it is implied that the other party will submit to the jurisdiction of the agreed tribunal. The case confirms that the English courts will take a liberal approach to the interpretation of arbitration clauses and will look at their commercial context.
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