Sodzawiczny v Ruhan & Ors [2018] EWHC 1908 (Comm) (26 July 2018)

Sodzawiczny v Ruhan & Ors [2018] EWHC 1908 (Comm) (26 July 2018)

All claims against Messrs Cooper and McNally fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the Deed and are subject to a mandatory stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996. The continuation of the freezing order is to be determined by the arbitrator, not the court, as the court's jurisdiction under s.44 is not engaged where the tribunal can act effectively and there is no urgency.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 1908 (Comm)
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 Proceedings (freezing Order, Stay, and Related Applications) / Interlocutory Applications (return Date for Freezing Order, Stay, Discharge, and Contingent Continuation Applications)
Outcome
Stay granted; freezing order to remain temporarily pending arbitral consideration.
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Arbitration Stay Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.9, Settlement Agreements, Breach of Trust, Fraud and Deceit, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals, Case Management Stays
Commercial Law Arbitration Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunctions Arbitration Stay Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.9 Settlement Agreements Breach of Trust Fraud and Deceit +2 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
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 Proceedings (freezing Order, Stay, and Related Applications) / Interlocutory Applications (return Date for Freezing Order, Stay, Discharge, and Contingent Continuation Applications)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claims fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the Deed and are subject to a mandatory stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the freezing order should be continued, discharged, or stayed pending arbitration
  3. 3 Whether there is a good arguable case and risk of dissipation justifying a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

All claims against Messrs Cooper and McNally fall within the scope of the arbitration clause in the Deed and are subject to a mandatory stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996. The continuation of the freezing order is to be determined by the arbitrator, not the court, as the court's jurisdiction under s.44 is not engaged where the tribunal can act effectively and there is no urgency.

Court Disposition

Stay granted; freezing order to remain temporarily pending arbitral consideration.

Orders

  • All proceedings against Messrs Cooper and McNally stayed under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Freezing order to remain in place until the arbitrator considers the application for equivalent relief.