Colliers International Property Consultants ("Cipc") & Anor v Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar Sdn Bhd

Colliers International Property Consultants ("Cipc") & Anor v Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar Sdn Bhd

The procedural irregularities identified, including unsigned claim form and witness statement, did not justify setting aside the order enforcing the arbitral award, as they were accidental, caused no prejudice, and could be remedied. There was no material non-disclosure or improper service. The defendant failed to provide grounds or evidence justifying an extension of time to challenge the award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Parties
Claimant: Colliers International Property Consultants; Claimant: Colliers International Property Consultants Inc; Defendant: Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar Sdn Bhd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Order Enforcing Arbitral Award
Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, Procedural Irregularities, Non Disclosure, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Extension of Time for Challenge Under Arbitration Act
Arbitration Civil Procedure International Law Enforcement of Arbitral Awards Procedural Irregularities Non Disclosure Service Out of Jurisdiction Extension of Time for Challenge Under Arbitration Act

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

Parties

Colliers International Property Consultants

Claimant

Colliers International Property Consultants Inc

Claimant

Colliers Jordan Lee Jafaar Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Enforcement / Application to Set Aside Order Enforcing Arbitral Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural irregularities in the claim form and witness statement justify setting aside the order enforcing the arbitral award
  2. 2 Whether there was material non-disclosure in the without notice application
  3. 3 Whether service of the order in Malaysia was defective

Ratio Decidendi

The procedural irregularities identified, including unsigned claim form and witness statement, did not justify setting aside the order enforcing the arbitral award, as they were accidental, caused no prejudice, and could be remedied. There was no material non-disclosure or improper service. The defendant failed to provide grounds or evidence justifying an extension of time to challenge the award under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants to file and serve signed claim form and witness statement within 7 days
  • Claimants to bear costs occasioned by the irregularity in the claim form and witness statement