J Jarvis & Sons Ltd v Blue Circle Dartford Estates Ltd

J Jarvis & Sons Ltd v Blue Circle Dartford Estates Ltd

The risk of Jarvis paying damages twice was eliminated by Blue Circle's undertaking. The existence or prospect of concurrent proceedings does not render the arbitration oppressive or vexatious. Delay by Jarvis in seeking relief was significant. The arbitrator's interim award involved no serious irregularity or error of law; all substantive issues were for the arbitrator. Accordingly, the application for injunction and challenges to the interim award were dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: J Jarvis & Sons Limited; Defendant: Blue Circle Dartford Estates Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial/construction Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Challenge to Interim Arbitral Award
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctions Restraining Arbitration, Section 68 and 69 Arbitration Act Challenges, Concurrent Proceedings, Oppressive/vexatious Proceedings, Party Autonomy in Arbitration
Arbitration Construction Law Civil Procedure Injunctions Restraining Arbitration Section 68 and 69 Arbitration Act Challenges Concurrent Proceedings Oppressive/vexatious Proceedings Party Autonomy in Arbitration

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Jarvis & Sons Limited

Claimant

Blue Circle Dartford Estates Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/construction Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on Application for Injunction and Challenge to Interim Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration proceedings should be restrained by injunction as oppressive or vexatious
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrator's interim award should be set aside for serious irregularity under section 68 Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 69 Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The risk of Jarvis paying damages twice was eliminated by Blue Circle's undertaking. The existence or prospect of concurrent proceedings does not render the arbitration oppressive or vexatious. Delay by Jarvis in seeking relief was significant. The arbitrator's interim award involved no serious irregularity or error of law; all substantive issues were for the arbitrator. Accordingly, the application for injunction and challenges to the interim award were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Jarvis's claim for an injunction is dismissed.
  • Jarvis's challenge to the arbitrator's interim award under section 68 Arbitration Act is dismissed.