Bond v Mackay & Ors

Bond v Mackay & Ors

Taking a broad view of the factual matrix and correspondence, the dispute under Clause 2(i) of the BG Deed was within the substantive jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and the claim for compensation under Clause 2(i) was part of the reference to arbitration. The failure to plead breach of Clause 2(i) was irrelevant to the scope of the reference.

Parties
Claimant: William Henry Bond; First Defendant: Roderick Mackay; Second Defendant: Perenco UK Limited; Third Defendant: Southern Gas Networks plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge (section 67 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/vary Arbitral Award
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitral Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement, Compensation for Mineral Sterilization, Scope of Reference to Arbitration
Arbitration Contract Law Property Law Arbitral Jurisdiction Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement Compensation for Mineral Sterilization Scope of Reference to Arbitration

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Henry Bond

Claimant

Roderick Mackay

First Defendant

Perenco UK Limited

Second Defendant

Southern Gas Networks plc

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge (section 67 Arbitration Act 1996) / Judgment on Application to Set Aside/vary Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dispute under Clause 2(i) of the BG Deed was within the scope of the reference to arbitration
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to determine the Clause 2(i) issue
  3. 3 Whether the costs order in the second award should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Taking a broad view of the factual matrix and correspondence, the dispute under Clause 2(i) of the BG Deed was within the substantive jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and the claim for compensation under Clause 2(i) was part of the reference to arbitration. The failure to plead breach of Clause 2(i) was irrelevant to the scope of the reference.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Second Award varied to include claim for compensation under Clause 2(i) within arbitrator's jurisdiction
  • Costs order in the second award set aside