Shalson v DF Keane Ltd

Shalson v DF Keane Ltd

Statutory demands are not legal proceedings for purposes of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996; no referral to arbitration had occurred; cross-claims did not equal or exceed the debts claimed; Chief Registrar acted within discretion in refusing to set aside statutory demands.

Parties
Claimant: Peter Shalson; Respondent: DF Keane Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Bankruptcy, Arbitration Stay, Cross Claims, JCT Contract
Insolvency Arbitration Construction Law Statutory Demand Bankruptcy Arbitration Stay Cross Claims JCT Contract

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Shalson

Claimant

DF Keane Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory demands should be set aside to enable arbitration under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether cross-claims equal or exceed the debts claimed under rule 6.5(4)(a)
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise discretion under rule 6.5(4)(d) to set aside statutory demands

Ratio Decidendi

Statutory demands are not legal proceedings for purposes of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996; no referral to arbitration had occurred; cross-claims did not equal or exceed the debts claimed; Chief Registrar acted within discretion in refusing to set aside statutory demands.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed