Bea Hotels NV v Bellway Llc [2007] EWHC 1363 (Comm) (12 June 2007)

Bea Hotels NV v Bellway Llc [2007] EWHC 1363 (Comm) (12 June 2007)

Bellway's conduct in the Israeli proceedings, as evidenced by the express exclusion in paragraphs 3-5 of the Particulars of Claim of any claims by Bellway against BEA that are subject to the arbitration agreement, did not amount to a repudiation of the arbitration agreement. There was no clear or unequivocal intention by Bellway not to be bound by the agreement to arbitrate disputes with BEA. The challenge to the arbitrator's jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 therefore fails.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1363 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: BEA Hotels N V; Defendant: Bellway LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Section 67 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge to Jurisdiction / Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Repudiation of Arbitration Agreement, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Parallel Proceedings, Interpretation of Pleadings, Section 67 Arbitration Act 1996
Arbitration Commercial Law Repudiation of Arbitration Agreement Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Parallel Proceedings Interpretation of Pleadings Section 67 Arbitration Act 1996

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BEA Hotels N V

Claimant

Bellway LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Section 67 Arbitration Act 1996 Challenge to Jurisdiction / Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether commencement of Tel Aviv 2 proceedings by Bellway constituted repudiation of the arbitration agreement with BEA
  2. 2 Whether Bellway's conduct evinced an intention not to be bound by the arbitration agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Israeli proceedings included claims by Bellway against BEA that should be arbitrated

Ratio Decidendi

Bellway's conduct in the Israeli proceedings, as evidenced by the express exclusion in paragraphs 3-5 of the Particulars of Claim of any claims by Bellway against BEA that are subject to the arbitration agreement, did not amount to a repudiation of the arbitration agreement. There was no clear or unequivocal intention by Bellway not to be bound by the agreement to arbitrate disputes with BEA. The challenge to the arbitrator's jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 therefore fails.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • BEA's application under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is dismissed
  • Costs to follow the event, subject to any special considerations to be raised at the formal handing down of the judgment