DDT Trucks of North America Ltd & Ors v DDT Holdings Ltd [2007] EWHC 1542 (Comm) (29 June 2007)

DDT Trucks of North America Ltd & Ors v DDT Holdings Ltd [2007] EWHC 1542 (Comm) (29 June 2007)

The applications to set aside or challenge the arbitration award failed because the arbitration agreement survived any alleged termination of the underlying contract, the alleged new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and was not decisive, and the policy of finality in arbitration outweighed any grounds for extension of time. The application to enforce the costs award succeeded.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 1542 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: DDT Trucks of North America Limited; Claimant: Joseph Martin Thoesen; Claimant: Peter John Thoesen; Defendant: DDT Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Enforcement and Challenge to Arbitration Award / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Arbitration Award, for Extension of Time, and for Enforcement of Costs Award
Outcome
Applications by Holdings under sections 67, 68, and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and for extension of time dismissed; application by DDT NA for enforcement of costs award granted.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Jurisdiction of Arbitrator, Extension of Time for Applications, Serious Irregularity (fraud/perjury), Interpretation of Settlement Agreements
Arbitration Commercial Law Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Jurisdiction of Arbitrator Extension of Time for Applications Serious Irregularity (fraud/perjury) Interpretation of Settlement Agreements

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DDT Trucks of North America Limited

Claimant

Joseph Martin Thoesen

Claimant

Peter John Thoesen

Claimant

DDT Holdings Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Enforcement and Challenge to Arbitration Award / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Arbitration Award, for Extension of Time, and for Enforcement of Costs Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration agreement survived the alleged termination of the distributorship agreement
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration award was procured by fraud or perjury
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justified setting aside the award

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to set aside or challenge the arbitration award failed because the arbitration agreement survived any alleged termination of the underlying contract, the alleged new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and was not decisive, and the policy of finality in arbitration outweighed any grounds for extension of time. The application to enforce the costs award succeeded.

Court Disposition

Applications by Holdings under sections 67, 68, and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and for extension of time dismissed; application by DDT NA for enforcement of costs award granted.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for DDT NA in terms of the Costs Award dated 13 April 2007.
  • Claimants awarded costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed at £38,114.75.