Whiting v Halverson & Ors
Once the claimant elected to arbitrate under the club constitution, he was bound by that choice and could not unilaterally withdraw and pursue litigation; the constitution and section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 required a stay of proceedings.
- Parties
- Appellant: Albert Whiting; Respondent: William Halverson; Respondent: Edmund Hall; Respondent: Jill Prendergast; Respondent: Alan Gillis
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 06 March 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction of Arbitration Clauses, Effect of Club Constitutions, Stay of Proceedings Under Arbitration Act 1996
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Albert Whiting
Appellant
William Halverson
Respondent
Edmund Hall
Respondent
Jill Prendergast
Respondent
Alan Gillis
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Article XI of the club constitution precluded the claimant from commencing legal proceedings in respect of termination of membership
- 2 Whether there was an effective withdrawal of the arbitration reference, thus no grounds for a stay of legal proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
Once the claimant elected to arbitrate under the club constitution, he was bound by that choice and could not unilaterally withdraw and pursue litigation; the constitution and section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 required a stay of proceedings.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Costs to be assessed by a costs judge
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment