Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC 1 (Comm) (12 January 2009)

Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd [2009] EWHC 1 (Comm) (12 January 2009)

The court should support the arbitral process by enforcing the tribunal's peremptory order under section 42, as the tribunal had jurisdiction over the counterclaim regarding the Steppe shares, and there was no sufficient reason in the interests of justice to refuse enforcement. The tribunal's jurisdiction was established by the wide arbitration clause and the factual connection between the agreements. A freezing order was justified due to the real risk of dissipation of the Steppe shares, but limited to 27% in line with the tribunal's permission and prior undertakings.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant (in First Action), Defendant (in Second Action): John Forster Emmott; Defendant (in First Action), Claimant (in Second Action): Michael Wilson & Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings Relating to Arbitration Enforcement and Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 42, 44, and 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Applications by Mr. Emmott granted; application by MWP dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Orders, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Freezing Injunctions, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses
Arbitration Commercial Law Enforcement of Arbitral Orders Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Freezing Injunctions Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Forster Emmott

Claimant (in First Action), Defendant (in Second Action)

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited

Defendant (in First Action), Claimant (in Second Action)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings Relating to Arbitration Enforcement and Challenge / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 42, 44, and 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order compliance with a peremptory order of the arbitral tribunal under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal had jurisdiction over the counterclaim regarding the Steppe shares under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether a freezing order should be granted under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The court should support the arbitral process by enforcing the tribunal's peremptory order under section 42, as the tribunal had jurisdiction over the counterclaim regarding the Steppe shares, and there was no sufficient reason in the interests of justice to refuse enforcement. The tribunal's jurisdiction was established by the wide arbitration clause and the factual connection between the agreements. A freezing order was justified due to the real risk of dissipation of the Steppe shares, but limited to 27% in line with the tribunal's permission and prior undertakings.

Court Disposition

Applications by Mr. Emmott granted; application by MWP dismissed.

Orders

  • Order requiring MWP to comply with the arbitral tribunal's peremptory order under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996, with time for compliance extended to 4pm on 13 January 2009.
  • Freezing order granted under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 in respect of 27% of the Steppe shares, subject to specified amendments.