A & Anor v C & Ors (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 258 (Comm) (12 February 2020)

The court does not have jurisdiction under s.44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 to make an order against a non-party to the arbitration agreement. The reasoning in Cruz City and DTEK applies equally to applications under s.44(2)(a) and where service out of the jurisdiction is not required.

Citation: [2020] EWHC 258 (Comm)
Parties: Claimant: A; Claimant: B; Defendant: C; Defendant: D; Defendant: E
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 12 February 2020
Procedural Posture: Arbitration Claim / Application for Order Under S.44(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome: Application dismissed
Legal Topics: Court Powers in Support of Arbitration, Jurisdiction Over Non Parties, Taking of Evidence in Arbitration, Section 44 Arbitration Act 1996

Arbitration Civil Procedure Court Powers in Support of Arbitration Jurisdiction Over Non Parties Taking of Evidence in Arbitration Section 44 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 10 Party arguments 2

Parties

Claimant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Application for Order Under S.44(2)(a) Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

1 Does the court have jurisdiction under s.44(2)(a) of the Arbitration Act 1996 to make an order against a non-party to the arbitration agreement?
2 If so, should the court exercise its discretion to make such an order in this case?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application dismissed