Bond v Mackay & Ors [2018] EWHC 2475 (TCC) (25 September 2018)

Bond v Mackay & Ors [2018] EWHC 2475 (TCC) (25 September 2018)

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. The scope of the reference to arbitration was not limited by the pleadings but encompassed the composite dispute regarding compensation, including Clause 2(i). The arbitrator's second Award was therefore varied to include Clause 2(i) within his jurisdiction, and the costs order was set aside as the event should have been decided in favour of the Claimant.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2475 (TCC)
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
Section 67 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Arbitrator's Jurisdiction, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreement, Compensation for Mineral Sterilization, Scope of Reference to Arbitration
Arbitration Property Law Contract Law Arbitrator's 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 4 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

Section 67 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a dispute under Clause 2(i) of the BG Deed was referred to arbitration and within the arbitrator's jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's second Award should be varied to include Clause 2(i) issues
  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. The scope of the reference to arbitration was not limited by the pleadings but encompassed the composite dispute regarding compensation, including Clause 2(i). The arbitrator's second Award was therefore varied to include Clause 2(i) within his jurisdiction, and the costs order was set aside as the event should have been decided in favour of the Claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The second Award is varied to include the claim for compensation under Clause 2(i) of the BG Deed within the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
  • The costs order in paragraph 4 of the second Award is set aside.