Maimann v Reyhanian

Maimann v Reyhanian

The application for permission to appeal was not made promptly, there was no good explanation for the delay, and the grounds of appeal were not sufficiently strong to justify relief from sanctions. The Beth Din had power to make the award, and the claimant was entitled to enforce it. The costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Anna Maimann; Defendant/appellant: Nissan Reyhanian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Extension of Time, Costs
Arbitration Civil Procedure Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Extension of Time Costs

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

Parties

Anna Maimann

Claimant/respondent

Nissan Reyhanian

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal out of time should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal (Beth Din) had power to make the award under section 48(5)(b) Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to enforce the award

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was not made promptly, there was no good explanation for the delay, and the grounds of appeal were not sufficiently strong to justify relief from sanctions. The Beth Din had power to make the award, and the claimant was entitled to enforce it. The costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused
  • No order for costs