25 November 2010
Noble Denton Middle East and another v Noble Denton International Ltd [2010] EWHC 2574 (Comm), [2010] All ER (D) 191 (Nov)
It was well established that s 18 of the Act was simply what might be categorised as a gateway. It was the way in which an arbitrator was appointed, and s 17 of the Act applied in different circumstances, but to the same effect. Further, the decision to arbitrate reflected what was often called “the autonomy of the parties” and should only very exceptionally be overriden by the courts. Arbitrators should, and were entitled to, decide not only issues, but also the question of their own jurisdiction. The court would intervene in certain circumstances.
- First, it would intervene after an arbitration when an application was made under s 67 of the Act by a losing party, if appropriate.
- Second, there could be references by the arbitrators in appropriate cases (or by the parties) under s 32 of the Act.
- Third, a non-party to arbitration, a party which had taken no part in an arbitration and wished to assert that it was not bound by an arbitration, could take
