Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
2011INTERNATIONALARBITRATIONREPORTRECENTDECISIONSOFTHEENGLISHHIGHCOURTREITERATESUPPORTIVEAPPROACHTOINTERNATIONALARBITRATION22ChalburyMcCouatInternationalLtdv.PGFoilsLtdInternationalTankPipeSAKv.KuwaitAviationFuellingCoKSCTravellersInsuranceCompanyLtdvCountrywideSurveyorsLtdHighCourtFindsSufcientConnectionwithEnglandHighCourtConrmsthatItHasNoJurisdictiontoOrderPre-actionDisclosureWherePartiesHaveAgreedtoArbitratetTheattitudeoflocalcourtstowardsarbitrationshouldalwaysbeakeyconsiderationwhendraftinganarbitrationagreementasitwillstronglyinuencewheretochooseastheseatorplaceofarbitration.Desirableseatswillhaveeffectiveandefcientcourtsthatarepreparedtointervenetosupportthearbitralproceedingswherenecessarybutalsotorespecttheseparateanddistinctnatureofarbitrationasameansofdisputeresolution.FourrecentcasesbeforetheEnglishHighCourtservetoreconfirmwhytheapproachoftheEnglishcourtstowardsarbitrationproceedingsremainsasignicantfactorinthepopularityofLondonasanarbitralseat.In2010EWHC2050TCCanEnglishcompanysoughttheassistanceoftheHighCourtintheappointmentofanarbitraltribunalundersection18oftheArbitrationAct1996theArbitrationAct.AsthepartiesarbitrationagreementwassilentastotheseatofthearbitrationhowevertheEnglishcourtcouldonlyinterveneintheappointmentprocesswhereitwasfoundtobeappropriatebyvirtueofaconnectionwithEnglandWalesorNorthernIrelandpursuanttosection24oftheArbitrationAct.RamseyJsoughttogiveeffecttothepartiesagreementtoarbitrateandheldthattherewassuchaconnectioninthiscase.InreachingthisconclusionhereliedprincipallyonthefactthatperformanceofthecontractspecicallythedismantlingofamanufacturingplantintheNetherlandswastobecarriedoutbyanEnglishcompanywithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinEngland.ApplyingArticle4oftheRomeConventiononthebasisthatthepartiesarbitrationagreementreferredtoarbitrationasperprevailinglawsofEuropeanUnionintheEuropeEnglishlawwouldmostlikelybethesubstantivelawofthedisputeasthecontractwasmostcloselyconnectedwithEngland.HavingdeterminedthatEnglishlawwouldlikelybethesubstantivelawofthedisputeRamseyJwasthenabletorelyonearlierCourtofAppealauthority1975QB224CAtoholdthattherewassufcientconnectionwithEnglandandWalesforthepurposesofsection24oftheArbitrationAct.RamseyJfurtherheldthatthepartiesreferencetoarbitrationasperprevailinglawsofEuropeanUnionintheEuropemeantthattheseatofarbitrationwaslikelytobeEuropeandpossiblyinEngland.InanyeventtheseatwasunlikelytobeinIndiaashadbeenassertedbythepartywhichhadrefusedtoparticipateintheappointmentprocedure.In2010EWHC2455TCCtheHighCourtrejectedanapplicationforpre-actiondisclosureonthebasisthattherewasnojurisdictiontoorderpre-actiondisclosurewherethepartiesdisputewasthesubjectofanarbitrationagreement.Thiswasasaresultofsection332oftheSeniorCourtsAct1981thestatutorybasisfortherelevantsectionoftheEnglishCivilProcedureRulestheplainmeaningofwhichwasthatthecourt