Eletson Gas LLC v [A Limited] & Ors

Eletson Gas LLC v [A Limited] & Ors

The 9th-10th defendants cannot rely on the JAMS award to establish control of the claimant or entitlement to appoint an arbitrator because the award has not been recognised in England, is subject to suspension by US courts, and the parties are not the same. Issue estoppel does not arise, and the 4th-8th defendants are entitled to appoint the claimant’s arbitrator.

Parties
Claimant: Eletson Gas LLC; Defendant: A Limited; Defendant: B Limited; Defendant: C Limited; Defendant: Mark Lichtenstein; Defendant: Eliyahu Hassett; Defendant: Joshua Fenttiman; Defendant: Adam Spears; Defendant: Leonard J Hoskinson; Defendant: Laskarina Karastamati; Defendant: Vassilis E. Kertsikoff
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim (section 32 Arbitration Act 1996) / Final Hearing and Judgment, Application for Permission to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Claim dismissed; 4th-8th defendants permitted to appoint claimant’s arbitrator; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Issue Estoppel, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals, Corporate Control Disputes, Bankruptcy Effects on Arbitration, Suspension of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Company Law Insolvency Conflict of Laws Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Issue Estoppel Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals Corporate Control Disputes +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eletson Gas LLC

Claimant

A Limited

Defendant

B Limited

Defendant

C Limited

Defendant

Mark Lichtenstein

Defendant

Eliyahu Hassett

Defendant

Joshua Fenttiman

Defendant

Adam Spears

Defendant

Leonard J Hoskinson

Defendant

Laskarina Karastamati

Defendant

Vassilis E. Kertsikoff

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim (section 32 Arbitration Act 1996) / Final Hearing and Judgment, Application for Permission to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 9th-10th defendants are entitled to rely on the JAMS arbitral award as binding in English proceedings
  2. 2 Who controls the claimant company and is entitled to appoint an arbitrator on its behalf
  3. 3 Effect of US bankruptcy and District Court orders on recognition/enforcement of the JAMS award

Ratio Decidendi

The 9th-10th defendants cannot rely on the JAMS award to establish control of the claimant or entitlement to appoint an arbitrator because the award has not been recognised in England, is subject to suspension by US courts, and the parties are not the same. Issue estoppel does not arise, and the 4th-8th defendants are entitled to appoint the claimant’s arbitrator.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; 4th-8th defendants permitted to appoint claimant’s arbitrator; permission to appeal refused.

Orders

  • 4th-8th defendants to appoint the claimant’s arbitrator in the London arbitration references.
  • Permission to appeal refused as no point of law of general importance arises.