Bulkbuild argued that the agreement within the meaning of Section 8 `cannot be complied with`. The complaint lodged by Bulkbuild against Fortuna was due to acts similar to those it brought against the second and third persons in the same proceedings. Bulkbuild therefore argued that the risk of establishing different facts was confirmed if its claim against Fortuna was decided by arbitration, but its claims against the other defendants were adjudicated. In our previous blog post on Autoridad del Canal de Panama vs. Sacyr, S.A. & Ors, we considered an abortive request to stay English legal proceedings in connection with a dispute in which related ICC arbitration proceedings are also ongoing. In a subsequent judgment, the English Court of Justice continued to consider the practical implications of the parallel procedure. The Tribunal dismissed the consortium`s request to allow the appeal against the decision that dismissed the stay under s9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and refused to stay the proceedings until an application for admission of the appeal was made to the Court of Appeal. In this regard, the Court stated that the service of a defence in the proceedings by the consortium was not a “step […] within the meaning of Article 9(3) of the Law, which would deprive the Court of Appeal of its jurisdiction to stay the appeal. As a result, it allowed the Court of Appeal to continue to tear up the proceedings until the consortium proceeded to consider the application for admission of the appeal. This case is a timely reminder that the potential risk of conflicting findings resulting from related proceedings in separate for a will not necessarily lead to an arbitration agreement being “invalid and invalid, ineffective or impracticable”. However, such inconvenience is a valid consideration in the exercise of a court`s discretion to stay judicial proceedings. With over 20 years of experience as a lawyer, Sydney Jacobs works in the areas of commercial and equity law, real estate law and construction law.
He has gained experience in the field of easements: he received easements for plaintiffs and otherwise performed in the cases listed below, managed a number of topical issues in the NSW Equity Division Real Property List up to the 2018 final hearing and is aware of some easement issues handled for filing in court. Prior to being called to the bar, Sydney was a lawyer in the firms known below as a commercial construction lawyer. Sydney has experience representing clients seeking or refusing easements and clients whose rights of way have been impeded by neighbours. You can contact Sydney via email [email protected] or LinkedIn It is important for those in the construction industry that the decision shows the application of the expansionist definition of “party” for the purposes of the law and the likelihood that the superintendents will be able to impose an arbitration agreement in appropriate cases, although they are not themselves parties to the arbitration agreement. The principal and the superintendents requested the stay of the dispute in favour of arbitration proceedings under Section 8 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) (Act) (based on the single national arbitration legislation) or, in any other way, in accordance with the Tribunal`s intrinsic discretion to stay the judicial proceedings.