A & Ors v E

The Defendant is the parent company of a substantial private group of companies founded and owned by a family. The Claimants are members of that family who operate the Defendant’s subsidiaries in a particular country. The dispute concerned the arrangement under which the Claimants held shares and director roles in those companies.

The Defendant had obtained relief against the Claimants through a Partial Final Award (the “Award”) made by an LCIA arbitration tribunal (the “Tribunal”), which found inter alia that the Claimants held the shares and roles as nominees of the Defendant.

The Claimants sought to challenge that Award, on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and/or that there was a serious irregularity in the Tribunal’s definition of the subsidiaries caught by their Award. The Defendant successfully defended both applications.

One issue of law that arose is whether a unilateral deed is capable of amounting to an arbitration agreement within sections 5 and 6(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (§39ff). Nigel Cooper KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that the term ‘arbitration agreement’ should be given a broad meaning given the open-textured language of the Act and its object and purpose. It therefore encompassed unilateral agreements to arbitrate on request which are in the form of a deed.

Andrew Hunter KC and Abe Chauhan acted for the Defendant in the Commercial Court, instructed by Kingsley Napley. Andrew Hunter KC also acted for the Defendant in the LCIA arbitration.

The judgment is available here.