Mordchai Ganz v Fze & Anor [2024] EWHC 1011 (Comm) (25 March 2024)

Mordchai Ganz v Fze & Anor [2024] EWHC 1011 (Comm) (25 March 2024)

The court found that, as there was no valid arbitration agreement and thus no substantive jurisdiction for the tribunal, the expectation of confidentiality was limited. The public interest in the publication of judgments, transparency, and scrutiny of arbitration practice outweighed the confidentiality concerns raised by Mr Goren. The judgment should be published. Costs were awarded to Mr Goren for the arbitration claim (excluding publication issue), and to Mr Ganz for the publication application.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1011 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Mordchai Ganz; First Defendant: Petronz FZE; Second Defendant: Abraham Goren
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (commercial Court) / Judgment on Publication, Substantive Jurisdiction, and Costs
Outcome
Judgment handed down; arbitration agreement found invalid; tribunal had no substantive jurisdiction; challenge under section 33 dismissed; costs awarded as specified.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality in Arbitration, Publication of Judgments, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Costs Orders, Summary Judgment Applications
Arbitration Civil Procedure Commercial Law Confidentiality in Arbitration Publication of Judgments Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Costs Orders Summary Judgment Applications

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

Parties

Mordchai Ganz

Claimant

Petronz FZE

First Defendant

Abraham Goren

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (commercial Court) / Judgment on Publication, Substantive Jurisdiction, and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment arising from an arbitration claim should be published given confidentiality concerns
  2. 2 Whether there was a valid and binding arbitration agreement conferring jurisdiction on the tribunal
  3. 3 Appropriate costs order following the outcome of the arbitration claim and related applications

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, as there was no valid arbitration agreement and thus no substantive jurisdiction for the tribunal, the expectation of confidentiality was limited. The public interest in the publication of judgments, transparency, and scrutiny of arbitration practice outweighed the confidentiality concerns raised by Mr Goren. The judgment should be published. Costs were awarded to Mr Goren for the arbitration claim (excluding publication issue), and to Mr Ganz for the publication application.

Court Disposition

Judgment handed down; arbitration agreement found invalid; tribunal had no substantive jurisdiction; challenge under section 33 dismissed; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • Judgment to be published.
  • Arbitration agreement declared not valid and binding; tribunal had no substantive jurisdiction.