United Kingdom / 15 October 2010 / England and Wales, High Court / Claxton Englineering Services Ltd v. TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KFT / 2010 Folio 47
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Court | England and Wales, High Court |
| Date | 15 October 2010 |
| Parties | Claxton Englineering Services Ltd v. TXM Olaj-Es Gazkutato KFT |
| Case number | 2010 Folio 47 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | II | II(3) |
| Source |
[2010] EWHC 2567 (Comm) | online: BAILII |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Claxton Engineering Services Ltd (“Claxton”) contracted with TXM Olaj-ES Gazkutato KFT (“TXM”) for the manufacture and sale of oil well equipment. A dispute arose and Claxton initiated proceedings before the English High Court. TXM sought a stay of the proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (U.K.) (“the Act”) (providing that the court shall, on an application by a party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought in respect of a matter which, under the agreement, is to be referred to arbitration, stay the proceedings so far as they concern that matter, unless it is satisfied that the agreement is null and void, inoperative, or incapable of being performed) (c.f. Article II(3) NYC). TXM submitted that the parties had agreed to refer any dispute arising out of the parties’ contract to arbitration in Hungary. In its submission, the correct approach was for the Court to conduct only a prima facie review of the existence of an arbitration agreement and to otherwise defer all questions as to the existence, scope and validity of such an agreement to an arbitral tribunal. It argued that this was consistent with: (i) the United Kingdom’s obligations to enforce arbitration agreements under the NYC, (ii) the principle of compétence-compétence and (iii) the non-interventionist policy of the Act. According to Claxton, the correct approach was for the Court to decide threshold questions of jurisdiction such as the existence of an arbitration agreement without deferring such questions to an arbitral tribunal. It denied that any such agreement had been made between the parties in the present case and sought to invoke a clause in the contract bestowing exclusive jurisdiction on the English courts. The Court refused the stay, considering that it could decide as a threshold question whether an arbitration agreement had been made between the parties. It ultimately agreed with Claxton as to the non-existence of such an agreement and the applicability of the exclusive jurisdiction clause, on grounds unrelated to the NYC. |
| affirmed by : |
|
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
