Mordchai Ganz v Petronz FZE & Anor

Mordchai Ganz v Petronz FZE & Anor

The court found that Mr Ganz failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the SPA and Arbitration Agreement were authentic and binding between himself and Mr Goren. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents and the conduct of the parties, did not support the existence of a binding agreement. The tribunal therefore had no substantive jurisdiction. The Section 68 challenge based on procedural unfairness was also dismissed as Mr Ganz had the opportunity to pursue expert evidence and did not do so.

Parties
Claimant: Mordchai Ganz; First Defendant: Petronz FZE; Second Defendant: Abraham Goren
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Section 67 and Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Validity of Arbitration Agreement, Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act, Burden of Proof in Contract Formation, Procedural Fairness in Arbitration
Arbitration Contract Law Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Validity of Arbitration Agreement Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act Burden of Proof in Contract Formation Procedural Fairness in Arbitration

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mordchai Ganz

Claimant

Petronz FZE

First Defendant

Abraham Goren

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (challenge to Award) / Judgment on Section 67 and Section 68 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the SPA and Arbitration Agreement were authentic and binding between Mr Ganz and Mr Goren
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal had substantive jurisdiction under Section 67 Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether there was serious irregularity under Section 68(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996 due to procedural unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Ganz failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the SPA and Arbitration Agreement were authentic and binding between himself and Mr Goren. The evidence, including contemporaneous documents and the conduct of the parties, did not support the existence of a binding agreement. The tribunal therefore had no substantive jurisdiction. The Section 68 challenge based on procedural unfairness was also dismissed as Mr Ganz had the opportunity to pursue expert evidence and did not do so.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Section 67 challenge dismissed: Tribunal had no substantive jurisdiction over Mr Ganz and Mr Goren
  • Section 68 challenge dismissed: No serious irregularity or procedural unfairness established