header-logo header-logo

04 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Arbitration

A Ltd v B Ltd [2014] EWHC 1870 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 219 (Jun)

Section 70(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 was primarily about the order in which a party could turn to an arbitral process and court proceedings. The essential policy was not to exclude the court process altogether, but to deal with the risk of concurrent proceedings in the court and the arbitral process. Section 70(2) barred a person’s access to the court only if and to the extent that he had himself limited access by vesting powers in an arbitral process whether by making an arbitration agreement or by participating in an arbitration. The natural implication of the Act was that s 70 of the Act governed all challenges under s 67 of the Act. The test whether an arbitral process was exhausted was flexible and fact-specific. 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll