WILLIAM QUAY HAYS & Ors v BLOOMFIELD INVESTMENTS LLC

WILLIAM QUAY HAYS & Ors v BLOOMFIELD INVESTMENTS LLC

Extensions of time were granted for the section 68/section 72(2)(b) challenges to the awards of interest because the delay, while significant, was not deliberate or tactical, the Claimants' section 68 challenge had good prospects of success, and the interests of justice required a departure from the statutory timetable. Extensions were refused for the section 67/section 72(2)(a) jurisdiction challenges as the Claimants did not demonstrate a strong case or reasonable conduct to justify the delay.

Parties
Claimant: William Quay Hays; Claimant: Grow Land and Water LLC; Claimant: Kings County Ventures LLC; Claimant: Green Renewable Organic and Water Holdings LLC (t/a Grow Holdings LLC); Defendant: Bloomfield Investments LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (arbitration Challenge) / Ruling on Applications for Extension of Time to Challenge Arbitral Awards
Outcome
Extensions of time granted in part; section 68/section 72(2)(b) challenges allowed to proceed, section 67/section 72(2)(a) challenges refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Arbitration Challenge, Serious Procedural Irregularity, Jurisdictional Challenge, Interest Awards in Arbitration, Piercing the Corporate Veil
Arbitration Commercial Law Extension of Time for Arbitration Challenge Serious Procedural Irregularity Jurisdictional Challenge Interest Awards in Arbitration Piercing the Corporate Veil

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Quay Hays

Claimant

Grow Land and Water LLC

Claimant

Kings County Ventures LLC

Claimant

Green Renewable Organic and Water Holdings LLC (t/a Grow Holdings LLC)

Claimant

Bloomfield Investments LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (arbitration Challenge) / Ruling on Applications for Extension of Time to Challenge Arbitral Awards

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extensions of time should be granted to challenge arbitral awards under sections 67, 68, and 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal committed a serious procedural irregularity in awarding interest at 65% per annum compounded quarterly
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal had substantive jurisdiction over Mr Hays and Grow Holdings under the alter ego doctrine

Ratio Decidendi

Extensions of time were granted for the section 68/section 72(2)(b) challenges to the awards of interest because the delay, while significant, was not deliberate or tactical, the Claimants' section 68 challenge had good prospects of success, and the interests of justice required a departure from the statutory timetable. Extensions were refused for the section 67/section 72(2)(a) jurisdiction challenges as the Claimants did not demonstrate a strong case or reasonable conduct to justify the delay.

Court Disposition

Extensions of time granted in part; section 68/section 72(2)(b) challenges allowed to proceed, section 67/section 72(2)(a) challenges refused.

Orders

  • Extensions of time granted for section 68/section 72(2)(b) challenges to the awards of interest.
  • Extensions of time refused for section 67/section 72(2)(a) jurisdiction challenges.