Autoridad Del Canal De Panama v Sacyr, S.A & Ors

Autoridad Del Canal De Panama v Sacyr, S.A & Ors

Permission to appeal against the refusal of a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 is refused as the threshold under CPR 52.6 is not met. Filing a defence under court order with appropriate reservation does not constitute a step in the proceedings under s.9(3). Defendants must file their defences within two months. ACP is entitled to two-thirds of its costs of the applications, with a payment on account ordered.

Parties
Claimant: Autoridad del Canal de Panama; Defendants: Sacyr, S.A and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Post Judgment Applications: Permission to Appeal, Stay Pending Appeal, Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; stay of proceedings pending appeal refused; directions given for filing of defences; costs awarded two-thirds to claimant; payment on account ordered.
Legal Topics
Advance Payment Guarantees, Jurisdiction Clauses, Stay of Proceedings, Costs, Arbitration Act 1996 S.9
Commercial Law Arbitration Advance Payment Guarantees Jurisdiction Clauses Stay of Proceedings Costs Arbitration Act 1996 S.9

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autoridad del Canal de Panama

Claimant

Sacyr, S.A and Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Post Judgment Applications: Permission to Appeal, Stay Pending Appeal, Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted against refusal of a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending appeal or application for permission to appeal
  3. 3 Whether filing a defence constitutes a 'step in the proceedings' under s.9(3) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal against the refusal of a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 is refused as the threshold under CPR 52.6 is not met. Filing a defence under court order with appropriate reservation does not constitute a step in the proceedings under s.9(3). Defendants must file their defences within two months. ACP is entitled to two-thirds of its costs of the applications, with a payment on account ordered.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; stay of proceedings pending appeal refused; directions given for filing of defences; costs awarded two-thirds to claimant; payment on account ordered.

Orders

  • Defendants to file their defences by 21 November 2017, without prejudice to their appeal rights and with appropriate reservation to avoid s.9(3) consequences.
  • Case management conference to be fixed after that date.