- TCC grants AA 1996, s 9 stay applying the presumption in favour of ‘one stop adjudication’ in multi-contract scenario (Surrey County Council v Suez Recycling and Recovery Surrey)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Arbitration analysis: Mr Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a High Court Judge in the Technology and Construction Court) granted a stay of litigation proceedings in favour of arbitration pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996). The decision states that the presumption in favour of ‘one-stop adjudication’ still has application where there is more than one contract between the same parties, each with a different dispute resolution clause. This is especially so where the different dispute resolution clauses can be construed so as to sit alongside one another. In a case where the first contract contains an arbitration agreement and a second contract contains a clause referring disputes to the domestic courts, it may be possible to construe these provisions consistently. However, it would not be correct to construe the reference to domestic courts as merely identifying the supervisory court of any arbitration commenced under the first contract. Instead, the correct approach is to identify the remaining provisions of the second contract that do not fall within the ambit of the arbitration agreement, even if this leaves the reference to domestic courts with ‘very little purpose in practice’. Written by Ben Bury, partner at Holman Fenwick Willan (HFW) in Hong Kong.
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