Walter Llewellyn & Sons Ltd & Anor v Excel Brickwork Ltd

Walter Llewellyn & Sons Ltd & Anor v Excel Brickwork Ltd

There was no express or implied agreement to arbitrate in the Sub-Contract. The relevant contract documents did not select arbitration as the dispute resolution forum. The Additions only apply if the standard form makes provision for arbitration, which it did not unless expressly selected. Therefore, there is no arbitration agreement and the application for a stay fails.

Parties
Claimant: Walter Llewellyn & Sons Limited; Claimant: Rok Building Limited; Defendant: Excel Brickwork Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Defendant's application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreements, Interpretation of Contracts, Stay of Proceedings, Construction Contracts
Contract Law Arbitration Arbitration Agreements Interpretation of Contracts Stay of Proceedings Construction Contracts

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walter Llewellyn & Sons Limited

Claimant

Rok Building Limited

Claimant

Excel Brickwork Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sub-Contract contains an arbitration agreement entitling the Defendant to a stay of proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

There was no express or implied agreement to arbitrate in the Sub-Contract. The relevant contract documents did not select arbitration as the dispute resolution forum. The Additions only apply if the standard form makes provision for arbitration, which it did not unless expressly selected. Therefore, there is no arbitration agreement and the application for a stay fails.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant’s costs of the application