Sodzawiczny v Ruhan & Ors

Sodzawiczny v Ruhan & Ors

All claims against Cooper and McNally fall within scope of arbitration clause in the Deed; mandatory stay granted under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996; freezing order to remain in place pending application to arbitrator for relief; Dr Smith and Ms Stickler, as Affiliates, entitled to benefit of arbitration clause under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s.8(2); proceedings against them stayed on same terms.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Franek Jan Sodzawiczny; Defendant/respondent: Andrew Joseph Ruhan; Defendant/respondent: Gerald Martin Smith; Defendant/respondent: Dawna Marie Stickler; Defendant/respondent: Simon Nicholas Hope Cooper; Defendant/respondent: Simon John McNally
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Applications for Stay, Discharge, and Continuation of Freezing Order
Outcome
Proceedings against Cooper, McNally, Smith, and Stickler stayed under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996; freezing order continued pending arbitrator’s consideration.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Arbitration Stay, Settlement Agreements, Fiduciary Duties, Fraud, Contracts (rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
Arbitration Commercial Law Trusts and Equity Freezing Orders Arbitration Stay Settlement Agreements Fiduciary Duties Fraud +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Franek Jan Sodzawiczny

Claimant/applicant

Andrew Joseph Ruhan

Defendant/respondent

Gerald Martin Smith

Defendant/respondent

Dawna Marie Stickler

Defendant/respondent

Simon Nicholas Hope Cooper

Defendant/respondent

Simon John McNally

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Ruling on Applications for Stay, Discharge, and Continuation of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims fall within scope of arbitration clause in settlement deed
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether freezing order should be continued or discharged

Ratio Decidendi

All claims against Cooper and McNally fall within scope of arbitration clause in the Deed; mandatory stay granted under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996; freezing order to remain in place pending application to arbitrator for relief; Dr Smith and Ms Stickler, as Affiliates, entitled to benefit of arbitration clause under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s.8(2); proceedings against them stayed on same terms.

Court Disposition

Proceedings against Cooper, McNally, Smith, and Stickler stayed under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996; freezing order continued pending arbitrator’s consideration.

Orders

  • Mandatory stay of proceedings under section 9 Arbitration Act 1996 for Cooper and McNally.
  • Stay of proceedings against Smith and Stickler as Affiliates under Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, s.8(2).