DDT Trucks of North America Ltd & Ors v DDT Holdings Ltd

DDT Trucks of North America Ltd & Ors v DDT Holdings Ltd

Holdings' applications under sections 67, 68, and 69 failed because the arbitration clause survived any alleged termination, the alleged new evidence of fraud could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and was not sufficiently material, and the application for extension of time lacked justification. The Costs Award was enforceable as a judgment.

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 Arbitration Enforcement and Challenge / Judgment on Applications to Set Aside Arbitration Award, Extension of Time, and Enforcement
Outcome
Applications by Holdings dismissed; Costs Award enforcement granted.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Challenge to Arbitral Jurisdiction, Serious Irregularity, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Extension of Time, Costs Assessment
Arbitration Commercial Law Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Challenge to Arbitral Jurisdiction Serious Irregularity Fraudulent Misrepresentation Extension of Time Costs Assessment

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arbitration award should be set aside for lack of jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the award was procured by fraud and constitutes a serious irregularity under section 68
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 69

Ratio Decidendi

Holdings' applications under sections 67, 68, and 69 failed because the arbitration clause survived any alleged termination, the alleged new evidence of fraud could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and was not sufficiently material, and the application for extension of time lacked justification. The Costs Award was enforceable as a judgment.

Court Disposition

Applications by Holdings dismissed; Costs Award enforcement granted.

Orders

  • Holdings' applications for extension of time and under sections 67, 68, and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 are dismissed.
  • DDT NA's application for leave to enforce the Costs Award of 13 April 2007 as a judgment is granted.