Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 (Ch) (24 March 2025)

Destin Trading Inc v Saipem SA [2025] EWHC 668 (Ch) (24 March 2025)

The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement supersedes the arbitration clauses in the prior Frame Agreements. The Monetary Claims, though quantified by reference to the Frame Agreements, are in substance claims for damages for deceit inducing the Settlement Agreement and thus fall within the Settlement Agreement's jurisdiction clause. The Arbitration Agreements are inoperative for the purposes of section 9(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996, and there is no ground for a stay.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 668 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant / Respondent: Destin Trading Inc; Defendant / Applicant: Saipem SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.9 / First Instance Judgment on Stay Application
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction Clauses, Settlement Agreements, Rescission for Misrepresentation, Stay of Proceedings
Arbitration Contract Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Agreements Jurisdiction Clauses Settlement Agreements Rescission for Misrepresentation Stay of Proceedings

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Destin Trading Inc

Claimant / Respondent

Saipem SA

Defendant / Applicant

Procedural Posture

Application for Stay of Proceedings Under Arbitration Act 1996, S.9 / First Instance Judgment on Stay Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement supersedes the arbitration clauses in the prior Frame Agreements
  2. 2 Whether the Monetary Claims fall within the scope of the Settlement Agreement's jurisdiction clause or the Frame Agreements' arbitration clauses
  3. 3 Whether a stay should be granted under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement supersedes the arbitration clauses in the prior Frame Agreements. The Monetary Claims, though quantified by reference to the Frame Agreements, are in substance claims for damages for deceit inducing the Settlement Agreement and thus fall within the Settlement Agreement's jurisdiction clause. The Arbitration Agreements are inoperative for the purposes of section 9(4) of the Arbitration Act 1996, and there is no ground for a stay.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Saipem's application for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed