Peterson Farms v C & M Farming Ltd & Anor

Peterson Farms v C & M Farming Ltd & Anor

The court declined to order security because the jurisdictional challenge under s.67 was not flimsy, the evidence did not justify requiring Mr Peterson to put up security for Peterson Farms, and C & M had enforcement proceedings pending in the US which could secure assets if successful. The discretionary power under s.70(7) should not be exercised where the challenge is substantive and enforcement options exist.

Parties
Claimant: Peterson Farms Inc; Defendant: C & M Farming Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.70(7) / Ruling on Application for Security Pending Determination of S.67 Challenge
Outcome
Application for security dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Arbitral Award, Jurisdictional Challenge, Group of Companies Doctrine, Agency, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Commercial Law Security for Arbitral Award Jurisdictional Challenge Group of Companies Doctrine Agency Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

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

Parties

Peterson Farms Inc

Claimant

C & M Farming Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.70(7) / Ruling on Application for Security Pending Determination of S.67 Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order security for the disputed part of an arbitral award pending determination of a jurisdictional challenge under s.67 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the arbitrators had jurisdiction to award damages to companies other than the nominal contracting party under the group of companies doctrine or agency
  3. 3 Whether the financial transactions post-award by Peterson Farms constitute fraudulent conveyances affecting enforcement

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to order security because the jurisdictional challenge under s.67 was not flimsy, the evidence did not justify requiring Mr Peterson to put up security for Peterson Farms, and C & M had enforcement proceedings pending in the US which could secure assets if successful. The discretionary power under s.70(7) should not be exercised where the challenge is substantive and enforcement options exist.

Court Disposition

Application for security dismissed

Orders

  • No order for security pending determination of s.67 challenge