Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Upholding the Agreement to Arbitrate

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Arbitration and Contract Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 54))

  • 2128 Accesses

Abstract

The two main ways in which arbitration agreements are upheld by the courts are: staying of court proceedings which are inconsistent with the commitment to arbitrate; the grant of anti-suit injunctions to stop a person from proceeding in a way which is similarly inconsistent with that commitment. Other topics include the grant of freezing relief by courts in support of arbitration proceedings or the judicial award of other interim orders to ‘hold the ring’ while arbitral proceedings are commenced.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Allianz SpA etc. v. West Tankers, ‘The Front Comor’ (C-185/07) [2009] 1 AC 1138, ECJ; confirmed in Gazprom OAO case (Grand Chamber, ECJ, 13 May 2015) (Case C-536/13): see 4.22.

  2. 2.

    Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol 1, Court Proceedings, chapter 16.

  3. 3.

    Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration: Companion Volume (London, 2001), 267: ‘A stay of legal proceedings is the principal means by which an arbitration agreement is enforced, there being no direct power to compel a party, by mandatory injunction, to appoint an arbitrator or to bring his claim by arbitration. A negative injunction is not, since the Judicature Acts [1873–5], the proper remedy for stopping court proceedings in England and Wales, although an injunction may, in a proper case, be granted to stay foreign proceedings brought in breach of an agreement to arbitrate.’ D Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement (3rd edn, London, 2015), chapter 11.

  4. 4.

    Section 9(1), Arbitration Act 1996; as noted by Lord Woolf in Patel v. Patel [2000] QB 551, 556, CA, the provision is based on Article 8(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law; and on Article II.3 (cited in the text above) of the New York Convention (1958); and indeed the phrase ‘null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed’ in section 9(4) of the Act (see below) is a literal adoption of those instruments.

  5. 5.

    Section 9(4), Arbitration Act 1996.

  6. 6.

    [2006] EWHC 1252 (Comm); [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 381.

  7. 7.

    ibid, at [27].

  8. 8.

    Section 9(3), Arbitration Act 1996.

  9. 9.

    Section 9(3), ibid; Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration: Companion Volume (London, 2001), 270-1; see also Roussel-Uclaf v. Searle [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 225, 231-2, Graham J (defendant resisting application for interim injunction; this did not involve ‘some positive act by way of offence on the part of the defendant’, who was instead ‘merely parrying a blow’).

  10. 10.

    [2000] QB 551, 556, CA.

  11. 11.

    [2002] EWCA Civ 135; [2002] 2 All ER 159; [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 514; [2002] CLC 787, at [60] to [64].

  12. 12.

    [2010] EWHC 1086 (Ch); [2010] Bus LR 1634; [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 29.

  13. 13.

    ibid, at [31].

  14. 14.

    Section 9(2), Arbitration Act 1996.

  15. 15.

    Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration (2nd edn, London, 1989), chapter 13, examining the eponymous case, (1856) 5 HL Cas 811.

  16. 16.

    Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration: Companion Volume (London, 2001), 272; the Departmental Advisory Committee Report (1996), at [57].

  17. 17.

    Section 49(3), Senior Courts Act 1981.

  18. 18.

    [2000] 1 WLR 173, CA.

  19. 19.

    [2007] EWHC 1094 (Ch).

  20. 20.

    ibid, at [35].

  21. 21.

    ibid, at [37].

  22. 22.

    [2006] EWHC 2006 (Comm); [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 591; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237; [2007] 2 CLC 157.

  23. 23.

    ibid, at [112].

  24. 24.

    Section 37(1), Senior Courts Act states: ‘The High Court may by order (whether interlocutory or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so.’

  25. 25.

    Lord Mance in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889, at [24] cited Pena Copper Mines Ltd v. Rio Tinto Co Ltd (1911) 105 LT 846, CA, as amongst the early, if not the first, instance of this type of anti-suit injunction in the context of arbitration agreements.

  26. 26.

    [2007] EWHC 253 (Comm); [2007] 1 CLC 85; [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 1, at [85], per Toulson LJ sitting at first instance in the Commercial Court, citing Lord Bingham’s approval in Donohue v. Armco [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749, at [19] of Lord Goff’s remarks in Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui JAK [1987] AC 871, 892, PC. And Toulson LJ cited Rix LJ in Glencore International AG v. Exter Shipping Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 528; [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 1; [2002] CLC 1, at [42] and [43]; see also Rix LJ in Star Reefers Pool Inc v. JFC Group Co Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 14, at [25] (noted M Ahmed (2012) 31 CJQ 267).

  27. 27.

    [2014] UKPC 41; [2015] AC 616, at [17]; these remarks concern anti-suit relief generally; the Shell case concerned prevention of foreign litigation which would distract from and perhaps conflict with efficient insolvency proceedings in the relevant host jurisdiction. Lord Sumption cited as follows Sir John Leach V-C in Bushby v. Munday (1821) 5 Madd 297, 307; 56 ER 908: ‘… this Court does not pretend to any interference with the other --> Court; it acts upon the Defendant by punishment for his contempt in his disobedience to the order of the Court…’

  28. 28.

    [2014] UKPC 41; [2015] AC 616, at [41].

  29. 29.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (delivered 4 December 2014), at [64], citing [2001] UKHL 65; [2002] 1 WLR 107, at [23], per Lord Hobhouse, and Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jak [1987] 1 AC 871, 892, PC, per Lord Goff.

  30. 30.

    [2001] UKHL 65; [2002] 1 WLR 107; Neil Andrews, ‘Injunctions in Support of Civil Proceedings and Arbitration’, in R Stürner and M Kawano (eds), Comparative Studies on Enforcement and Provisional Measures (Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany, 2011), 319–344.

  31. 31.

    [2001] UKHL 65; [2002] 1 WLR 107, at [22].

  32. 32.

    ibid, at [23].

  33. 33.

    ibid, at [24].

  34. 34.

    AES case [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889.

  35. 35.

    Arbitration clauses or exclusive jurisdiction clauses create a reciprocal duty to use only the nominated seat/forum and a reciprocal duty not to arbitrate/litigate elsewhere: AMT Futures Ltd v. Marzillier [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm), at [36], per Popplewell J (reversed on a different point, [2015] EWCA Civ 143; [2015] 3 WLR 282; [2015] ILPr 20).

  36. 36.

    AES case [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889, at [48]; see also [55] to [57] and [60].

  37. 37.

    Gazprom OAO case (Grand Chamber, ECJ, 13 May 2015) (Case C-536/13).

  38. 38.

    (i) final relief, section 48(5), Arbitration Act 1996; (ii) interim anti-suit relief, section 39(1),(4), Arbitration Act 1996; T Raphael, The Anti-Suit Injunction (Oxford University Press, 2008), 7.39 to 7.41.

  39. 39.

    AES case [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889, at [60].

  40. 40.

    [2006] EWCA Civ 218; [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 504; [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 716, at [33], per Lord Phillips CJ, giving the court’s judgment; noted H Seriki (2006) JBL 541-4.

  41. 41.

    [2006] EWHC 2006 (Comm); [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 591; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237.

  42. 42.

    [2007] EWCA Civ 1124; [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 351; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1; [2007] 2 CLC 782.

  43. 43.

    ibid, at [17].

  44. 44.

    [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889.

  45. 45.

    Although declaratory relief is not mentioned within section 37, Senior Courts Act 1981, the Supreme Court in the present proceedings appears to have regarded declaratory powers to be part of its inherent jurisdiction.

  46. 46.

    Applying section 32, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (section 32(4) creates a different approach where the foreign decision is made within the Jurisdiction Regulation (the Brussels Regulation) or the Lugano Convention systems).

  47. 47.

    See on this last point, section 33, Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

  48. 48.

    C v. D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239; on the so-called ‘Bermuda Form’, R Jacobs, L Masters, P Stanley, Liability Insurance in International Arbitration: The Bermuda Form (2nd edn, Hart, Oxford, 2011).

  49. 49.

    C v. D [2007] EWCA Civ 1282; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 239, at [17], per Longmore LJ.

  50. 50.

    This is the result of the definition of ‘question of law’ in section 82(1), Arbitration Act 1996; that definition fixes the scope of section 69, Arbitration Act 1996 (appeal to court on a ‘question of law arising out of an award made in the [arbitration] proceedings’); equally, if the award has applied non-English law to the substantive agreement, consistent with a choice of law clause (see section 46(1), Arbitration Act 1996), there will be no possibility of appeal under section 69.

  51. 51.

    [2010] EWCA Civ 66; [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 543; [2010] 1 CLC 113, at [50] to [52] and [69], per Toulson LJ.

  52. 52.

    [2011] EWHC 3035 (Comm); [2011] Arb LR 54.

  53. 53.

    ibid, at [16] and [17].

  54. 54.

    [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889.

  55. 55.

    Allianz SpA etc. v. West Tankers (C-185/07) [2009] 1 AC 1138; [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 435; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 413; [2009] 1 CLC 96; [2009] ILPr 20; The Times, 13 February, 2009; noted E Peel (2009) 125 LQR 365.

  56. 56.

    However, for discussion by a leading French and transnational commentator, E Gaillard, ‘Reflections on the Use of Anti-Suit Injunctions in International Arbitration’, in LA Mistelis and JDM Lew (eds), Pervasive Problems in International Arbitration (The Hague, 2006), 201–214.

  57. 57.

    Allianz SpA etc. v. West Tankers, ‘The Front Comor’ (C-185/07) [2009] 1 AC 1138.

  58. 58.

    ibid, at [28], [29], citing Erich Gasser GmbH v. Misat Srl Case C-116/02 [2003] 1 ECR 14693; [2005] QB 1; [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 222; Overseas Union Insurance Ltd v. New Hampshire Co Case C-351/89 [1991] 1 ECR I-3317; [1992] QB 434; [1992] 2 All ER 138; [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 204.

  59. 59.

    Observation communicated to the author at a European colloquium.

  60. 60.

    [2005] 1 AC 101; [2004] ECR I-3565, at [30].

  61. 61.

    Gazprom OAO case (Grand Chamber, ECJ, 13 May 2015) (Case C-536/13).

  62. 62.

    Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (delivered 4 December 2014), at [130] to [152].

  63. 63.

    In detail, recital (12) of the Jurisdiction Regulation (2012) (effective 10 January 2015) provides:

    ‘This Regulation should not apply to arbitration. Nothing in this Regulation should prevent the courts of a Member State, when seised of an action in a matter in respect of which the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement, from referring the parties to arbitration, from staying or dismissing the proceedings, or from examining whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, in accordance with their national law.

    A ruling given by a court of a Member State as to whether or not an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed should not be subject to the rules of recognition and enforcement laid down in this Regulation, regardless of whether the court decided on this as a principal issue or as an incidental question.

    On the other hand, where a court, exercising jurisdiction under this Regulation or under national law, has determined that an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, this should not preclude that court’s judgment on the substance of the matter from being recognised and, as the case may be, enforced in accordance with this Regulation. This should be without prejudice to the competence of the courts of the Member States to decide on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in accordance with the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, done at New York on 10 June 1958 (‘The 1958 New York Convention’), which takes precedence over this Regulation.

    This Regulation should not apply to any action or ancillary proceedings relating to, in particular, the establishment of the arbitral tribunal, the powers of the arbitrators, the conduct of the arbitration procedure or any other aspects of such a procedure, nor to any action or judgment concerning the annulment, review, appeal, recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award.’

  64. 64.

    Gazprom OAO case (Grand Chamber, ECJ, 13 May 2015) (Case C-536/13).

  65. 65.

    The Gazprom case (2015) was decided under the pre-2012 Jurisdiction Regulation, Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, but it is clear from the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet (delivered 4 December 2014) that Recital 12 in the preamble to the Brussels 1 Regulation (recast) (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) is a ‘retroactive interpretative law’, which ‘explains how [the arbitration] exclusion must be and always should have been interpreted’ (per A-G Wathelet, Opinion, 4 December 2014, at [91] ff).

  66. 66.

    Gazprom OAO case (Grand Chamber, ECJ, 13 May 2015) (Case C-536/13), at [32] and [33].

  67. 67.

    ibid, at [34].

  68. 68.

    ibid, at [35].

  69. 69.

    ibid, at [36] (and at [28]).

  70. 70.

    ibid, at [42] and [43].

  71. 71.

    ibid, at [37].

  72. 72.

    ibid, at [40].

  73. 73.

    ibid, at [38].

  74. 74.

    ibid, at [38], [41], [42], [43].

  75. 75.

    [2009] EWCA Civ 175; The Times, 27 March 2009, at [32].

  76. 76.

    [2009] EWCA Civ 1397; [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 1243; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 193.

  77. 77.

    Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol 1, Court Proceedings, chapter 16.

  78. 78.

    [2009] EWCA Civ 1397; [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 1243; [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 193, at [118], per Moore-Bick LJ (noted, H Seriki, (2010) 7 JBL 541-55); overruling Burton J in CMA SA Hyundai MIPO Dockyard Co Ltd [2008] EWHC 2791(Comm); [2009] Lloyd’s Rep 213.

  79. 79.

    Bank St Petersburg case, [2014] EWCA Civ 593; [2014] 1 WLR 4360.

  80. 80.

    Arbitration clauses or exclusive jurisdiction clauses create a duty to use only the nominated seat for the arbitral process/nominated forum for the court proceedings and a duty not to arbitrate/litigate elsewhere: AMT Futures Ltd v. Marzillier [2014] EWHC 1085 (Comm), at [36], per Popplewell J (reversed on a different point, [2015] EWCA Civ 143; [2015] QB 699).

  81. 81.

    Under English law, punitive damages are not available for breach of contract: 17.17, at paragraph (iv).

  82. 82.

    Lord Hobhouse in Donohue v. Armco Inc {2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425, at [48], [75] assumed that, in the analogous situation of a breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the innocent party would have a claim for breach of the contract, giving him at any rate compensation for costs not awarded in the relevant foreign jurisdiction; generally on this topic, D Joseph, Jurisdiction and Arbitration Agreements and Their Enforcement (3rd edn, London, 2015), chapter 14.

  83. 83.

    [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 375, CA; CMA CGM SS v. Hyundai Mipo Dockyard Co [2008] EWHC 2791; [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213, where Burton J awarded damages for breach of an arbitration agreement.

  84. 84.

    Colman J in West Tanker case [2005] EWHC 454 (Comm); [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 257, at [66], [67], [69].

  85. 85.

    [2008] EWHC 2791(Comm); [2009] Lloyd’s Rep 213.

  86. 86.

    British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 12 May 2009.

  87. 87.

    Indemnity costs are more generously assessed in favour of the receiving party than standard basis costs, because the control of ‘proportionality’ does not apply to the indemnity measure: for details, Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol 1, Court Proceedings, chapter 18.

  88. 88.

    A v. B (No 2) [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 358 (Colman J), especially at [10].

  89. 89.

    [2015] EWCA Civ 143; [2015] 3 WLR 282; [2015] ILPr 20 (reversing Popplewell J).

  90. 90.

    ibid.

  91. 91.

    [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889.

  92. 92.

    AES case [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889, at [9], [10], [61] (noting that the impact of section 32 of the 1982 had been considered in the courts below); see especially Rix LJ in [2011] EWCA Civ 647; [2012] 1 WLR 920, at [149] and [150].

  93. 93.

    West Tankers Inc v. Allianz SpA (‘The Front Comor’) [2012] EWCA Civ 27; [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 113; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 398; [2012] CP Rep 19; [2012] 1 CLC 312; 140 Con LR 45; [2012] ILP 19, at [36] to [38], upholding Field J at first instance ([2011] EWHC 829 (Comm); [2011] 2 All ER (Comm) 1), and approving at [28], [34], and [39], Beatson J in African Fertilizers and Chemicals NIG Ltd v. BD Shipsnavo GmbH & Co Reederei KG [2011] EWHC 2452 (Comm); [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 531; [2011] ILPr 38; [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 117; [2011] 1 CLC 553.

  94. 94.

    [2012] EWCA Civ 27; [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 113; [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 398; [2012] CP Rep 19; [2012] 1 CLC 312; 140 Con LR 45; [2012] ILP 19, at [36].

  95. 95.

    ibid, at [37].

  96. 96.

    ibid, at [38].

  97. 97.

    Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol 1, Court Proceedings, chapter 21; S Gee, Commercial Injunctions (5th edn, 2006), ch 2 (6th edn expected); M Hoyle, Freezing and Search Orders (4th edn, 2006); Zuckerman on Civil Procedure (3rd edn, 2013), 10.201 ff; IS Goldrein (ed), Commercial Litigation: Pre-emptive Remedies (updated service), Part A, section 2; for extensive bibliographical details on this topic, Neil Andrews ‘Provisional and Protective Measures: Towards a Uniform Provisional Order’ (2001) Uniform L Rev (Rev dr unif) vol VI, 931-49 (this article contains analysis of a possible ‘blue-print’ for an international code or practice relating to freezing relief, preservation of evidence, and asset disclosure orders). P McGrath, ‘The Freezing Order: A Constantly Evolving Jurisdiction’ (2012) 31 CJQ 12.

  98. 98.

    Section 39(1), Arbitration Act 1996 precludes the arbitrator from granting a ‘provisional’ order if it is of a type which cannot be granted as final relief by the arbitrator; there is no such thing as a final freezing injunction, because this type of order is intrinsically ancillary to the adjudication of the merits, as Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration; Companion Volume (2001), 330-1 correctly observe, see also, ibid, at 314-5, also citing the DAC Report, at [201] to [203] (‘these draconian powers are best left to be applied by the Courts’); see also T Raphael, The Anti-Suit Injunction (Oxford University Press, 2008), 7.39 n 102; but the court has a power to issue a freezing injunction under section 44(3), Arbitration Act 1996 in cases of ‘urgency’, on the application of a party or ‘proposed’ party; in the absence of ‘urgency’ the court can grant freezing relief only if the parties or arbitrator requests: section 44(4), Arbitration Act 1996.

  99. 99.

    ‘Report (2006) on the Arbitration Act 1996’, at [49] to [54].

    The report is accessible at www.idrc.co.uk/aa96survey/Report_on_Arbitration_Act_1996.pdf.

  100. 100.

    DAC Report (1996), at [214].

  101. 101.

    AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647; [2012] 1 WLR 920; [2012] Bus LR 330; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 845; [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 233; [2011] 2 CLC 51, at [56]: ‘Section 37 is a general power, not specifically tailored to situations where there is either an arbitration agreement or an exclusive choice of court clause.’

  102. 102.

    AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2011] EWCA Civ 647; [2012] 1 WLR 920; [2012] Bus LR 330; [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 845; [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 233; [2011] 2 CLC 51, at [96], per Rix LJ.

  103. 103.

    Section 44, Arbitration Act 1996.

  104. 104.

    Section 2(3)(b), Arbitration Act 1996.

  105. 105.

    The leading discussion of such links is Motorola Credit Corporation v. Uzan [2004] 1 WLR 113, CA; on which Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol 1, Court Proceedings, 21.30 ff.

  106. 106.

    [2008] EWHC 532 (Comm); [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 1034; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 684; [2008] 1 CLC 542; noted Adam Johnson (2008) CJQ 433-44; see also ETI Euro Telecom International NV v. Republic of Bolivia [2008] EWCA Civ 880; [2009] 1 WLR 665.

  107. 107.

    [2008] EWHC 532 (Comm), at [5].

  108. 108.

    ibid, at [28].

  109. 109.

    [2011] EWCA Civ 1042; on this case Andrews on Civil Processes (Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, 2013), vol 1, Court Proceedings, 21.22 and 21.23.

  110. 110.

    On asset disclosure orders, Andrews, ibid, 21.18.

  111. 111.

    For a global survey, LW Newman and C Ong (eds), Interim Measures in International Arbitration (Juris, New York, 2014).

  112. 112.

    [2005] EWCA Civ 618; [2005] 1 WLR 3555 (noted in AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v. Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant [2013] UKSC 35; [2013] 1 WLR 1889, at [46]).

  113. 113.

    [2004] EWHC 479 (Comm); [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 753; [2004] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 438, Cooke J (noted in AES case, ibid, at [46]).

  114. 114.

    [1993] AC 334, 345-6, HL (clause 67).

  115. 115.

    See now the even clearer statutory power to grant a stay in this context under section 9(1)(2), Arbitration Act 1996, on which Mustill & Boyd, Commercial Arbitration; Companion Volume (2001), 268 ff.

  116. 116.

    J Kendall, C Freedman, J Farrell, Expert Determination (4th edn, London, 2008); A Agapiou and B Clark, ‘An Empirical Analysis of Scottish Construction Lawyers’ Interaction with Mediation…’ (2012) CJQ 494; on mediation and experts, L Blom-Cooper (ed), Experts in Civil Courts (Oxford University Press, 2006), chapter 10. See also P Coulson, Coulson on Construction Adjudication (3rd edn, Oxford University Press, 2015) on accelerated resolution of construction disputes (so-called ‘adjudication’) under Part II, Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.

  117. 117.

    Clause 67 provided: ‘…If any dispute or difference shall arise between the employer and the contractor during the progress of the works…, [it] shall at the instance of either the employer or the contractor in the first place be referred…to be settled by a panel of three persons (acting as independent experts but not as arbitrators)… [If] either the employer or the contractor be dissatisfied with any unanimous decision of the [expert] panel… [that party] may… notify the other party… that the dispute or difference is to be referred to arbitration.’

  118. 118.

    [1993] AC 334, 368, HL, per Lord Mustill.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Cambridge, UK

    Neil Andrews

Authors
  1. Neil Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andrews, N. (2016). Upholding the Agreement to Arbitrate. In: Arbitration and Contract Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 54. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27144-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27144-6_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27142-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27144-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation