- No AA 1996, s 9 stay of Part 8 proceedings as dispute not within scope of arbitration agreement (European Film Bonds v Lotus Holdings)
- What are the implications of this judgment?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Law applicable to the arbitration agreements
- The impact of the arbitrator’s determination of the Scope Issue
- The scope of the arbitration agreement
- Stay under the inherent jurisdiction or as a matter of case management
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: Deputy Master Henderson, sitting in the Business List of the Chancery Division, dismissed an application, made, primarily, pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), to stay CPR Part 8 proceedings for declaratory relief in favour of California-seated Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) arbitration. The Master determined that the ‘substantive issue’ in dispute between the parties did not fall within the scope of the relevant arbitration agreement. As such, AA 1996, s 9 had no application. In addition, the court declined to stay the proceedings under the court’s inherent jurisdiction or case management powers.
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