- No stay for arbitration in professional negligence litigation (Premier Cruises v DLA Piper Rus and DLA Piper UK)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- DLA Russia’s application (AA 1996, s 9)
- DLA UK’s application (case management stay)
- What did the court decide?
- Stay under AA 1996, s 9(1)
- Case management stay
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: Mr David Edwards QC in the Commercial Court refused to stay English court proceedings in favour of arbitration following an application under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The court found, against the first defendant (DLA Russia), that the claims made by the claimant did not fall within the scope of the relevant arbitration agreement contained in an engagement letter: the arbitration agreement was not retrospective, and therefore, did not govern the matters which were the subject matter of the claim. The court also refused to stay proceedings on case management grounds, a route the second defendant (DLA UK) relied on, given that it was not party to the arbitration agreement. Written by Lorraine Aboagye, barrister, at Essex Court Chambers.
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