Heifer International Inc v Helge Christiansen & Ors [2007] EWHC 3015 (TCC) (18 December 2007)

Heifer International Inc v Helge Christiansen & Ors [2007] EWHC 3015 (TCC) (18 December 2007)

The court found that the written agreements between the parties, including the arbitration clauses, were valid and binding, and that the disputes should be referred to the Danish Arbitration Board in accordance with the contracts. The English court therefore granted a stay of proceedings under Section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 did not apply as Heifer was not acting as a consumer. The Brussels Convention did not confer jurisdiction on the English court as the place of performance was Denmark.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 3015 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Heifer International Inc; First Defendant: Helge Christiansen; Second Defendant: Christiansen Arkitekter KS MAA PAR; Third Defendant: Haslev-Hansen VVS; Fourth Defendant: Stevns El-Service A/S; Fifth Defendant: Listed El-Teknik ApS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Application / Interlocutory (stay, Dismissal, Jurisdiction Challenge)
Outcome
Stay of proceedings granted; English court declines jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Arbitration Clauses, Stay of Proceedings, Brussels Convention, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Contract Formation, Choice of Law
Civil Procedure Arbitration Private International Law Construction Law Jurisdiction Arbitration Clauses Stay of Proceedings Brussels Convention +3 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heifer International Inc

Claimant

Helge Christiansen

First Defendant

Christiansen Arkitekter KS MAA PAR

Second Defendant

Haslev-Hansen VVS

Third Defendant

Stevns El-Service A/S

Fourth Defendant

Listed El-Teknik ApS

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Interlocutory (stay, Dismissal, Jurisdiction Challenge)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the Danish defendants
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration clauses in the contracts require disputes to be heard in Denmark
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration clauses were incorporated into the contracts

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written agreements between the parties, including the arbitration clauses, were valid and binding, and that the disputes should be referred to the Danish Arbitration Board in accordance with the contracts. The English court therefore granted a stay of proceedings under Section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 did not apply as Heifer was not acting as a consumer. The Brussels Convention did not confer jurisdiction on the English court as the place of performance was Denmark.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings granted; English court declines jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Proceedings stayed under Section 9(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • Disputes to be referred to the Danish Building and Construction Arbitration Board.