Reichhold Norway ASA & Anor v Goldman Sachs International [1999] EWCA Civ 1703 (28 June 1999)

Reichhold Norway ASA & Anor v Goldman Sachs International [1999] EWCA Civ 1703 (28 June 1999)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had jurisdiction to stay the proceedings under the court's inherent powers and that the discretion was properly exercised. The stay was justified by the existence of overlapping arbitration proceedings in Norway, the coherent contractual arrangements between the parties, and the interests of justice, cost, and convenience. The court emphasized that such stays would be rare and only granted in compelling circumstances.

Citation
[1999] EWCA Civ 1703
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Reichhold Norway ASA; Claimant/appellant: Reichhold Chemicals Inc; Defendant/respondent: Goldman Sachs International
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Arbitration, Jurisdiction, Case Management, Forum Non Conveniens
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Stay of Proceedings Arbitration Jurisdiction Case Management Forum Non Conveniens

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reichhold Norway ASA

Claimant/appellant

Reichhold Chemicals Inc

Claimant/appellant

Goldman Sachs International

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to stay proceedings pending arbitration in another jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the discretion to stay proceedings was properly exercised in the interests of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge had jurisdiction to stay the proceedings under the court's inherent powers and that the discretion was properly exercised. The stay was justified by the existence of overlapping arbitration proceedings in Norway, the coherent contractual arrangements between the parties, and the interests of justice, cost, and convenience. The court emphasized that such stays would be rare and only granted in compelling circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Leave to appeal refused