Maimann v Reyhanian [2006] EWCA Civ 98 (19 January 2006)

Maimann v Reyhanian [2006] EWCA Civ 98 (19 January 2006)

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 under CPR Part 3.9. The Beth Din had power to make the award, and the costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 98
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Anna Maimann; Defendant/appellant: Nissan Reyhanian
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (permission to Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal From Order Enforcing Arbitration Award
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Relief From Sanctions, Costs Assessment, Restrictive Covenants
Civil Procedure Arbitration Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Relief From Sanctions Costs Assessment Restrictive Covenants

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

Parties

Anna Maimann

Claimant/respondent

Nissan Reyhanian

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (permission to Appeal) / Application for Permission to Appeal From Order Enforcing Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted out of time against an order enforcing an arbitration award
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal (Beth Din) had power to make the award under 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 under CPR Part 3.9. The Beth Din had power to make the award, and the costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused
  • No order for costs