Premier Cruises Ltd v DLA Piper Rus Ltd & Anor

Premier Cruises Ltd v DLA Piper Rus Ltd & Anor

The arbitration agreement in the Engagement Letter between PCL and DLA Russia did not apply retroactively to disputes arising from advice or work done prior to its execution, as there was no clear expression of intent for retroactivity in the agreement or contract under Russian law. Therefore, the claim against DLA Russia was not subject to a mandatory stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The application for a case management stay against DLA UK was also dismissed, as DLA UK was not party to the arbitration agreement and there were no rare or compelling circumstances justifying a discretionary stay.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Premier Cruises Limited; First Defendant/applicant: DLA Piper Rus Limited; Second Defendant/applicant: DLA Piper UK LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Damages in Contract And/or Tort for Professional Negligence / Ruling on Applications for Stay of Proceedings Under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and for a Case Management Stay
Outcome
Applications for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement Scope, Retroactivity of Arbitration Clauses, Professional Negligence by Solicitors, Jurisdictional Stay, Case Management Stay
Contract Law Tort Law Arbitration Professional Negligence Arbitration Agreement Scope Retroactivity of Arbitration Clauses Professional Negligence by Solicitors Jurisdictional Stay +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Premier Cruises Limited

Claimant/respondent

DLA Piper Rus Limited

First Defendant/applicant

DLA Piper UK LLP

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Damages in Contract And/or Tort for Professional Negligence / Ruling on Applications for Stay of Proceedings Under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and for a Case Management Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration agreement in the Engagement Letter between PCL and DLA Russia applies retroactively to cover disputes arising from advice and work done prior to its execution
  2. 2 Whether proceedings against DLA Russia should be stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether proceedings against DLA Piper UK LLP should be stayed on case management grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The arbitration agreement in the Engagement Letter between PCL and DLA Russia did not apply retroactively to disputes arising from advice or work done prior to its execution, as there was no clear expression of intent for retroactivity in the agreement or contract under Russian law. Therefore, the claim against DLA Russia was not subject to a mandatory stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The application for a case management stay against DLA UK was also dismissed, as DLA UK was not party to the arbitration agreement and there were no rare or compelling circumstances justifying a discretionary stay.

Court Disposition

Applications for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Application by DLA Russia for a stay of proceedings under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed.
  • Application by DLA UK for a case management stay is dismissed.