Autoridad Del Canal De Panama v Sacyr, S.A & Ors [2017] EWHC 2337 (Comm) (21 September 2017)

Autoridad Del Canal De Panama v Sacyr, S.A & Ors [2017] EWHC 2337 (Comm) (21 September 2017)

Permission to appeal the refusal of a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 was refused as the appeal did not meet the threshold under CPR Part 52.6. Filing a defence under reservation, pursuant to a court order, does not constitute a step in proceedings under s.9(3) and does not prejudice the defendants' right to seek a stay. The claimant is entitled to two-thirds of its costs of the applications, reflecting the mixed outcome.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2337 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Autoridad del Canal de Panama; First Defendant: Sacyr, S.A.; Defendants: Second, Third and Fifth Defendants; Defendant: Fourth Defendant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim Regarding Advance Payment Guarantees / Post Judgment Applications: Permission to Appeal, Stay Pending Appeal, Costs
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; defendants to file defences within two months; claimant awarded two-thirds of its costs of the applications; payment on account of costs ordered.
Legal Topics
Advance Payment Guarantees, Jurisdiction Clauses, Arbitration Stay Under S.9 Arbitration Act 1996, Summary Judgment, Case Management Stay, Costs Orders
Commercial Law Arbitration Banking and Finance Advance Payment Guarantees Jurisdiction Clauses Arbitration Stay Under S.9 Arbitration Act 1996 Summary Judgment Case Management Stay +1 more

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Autoridad del Canal de Panama

Claimant

Sacyr, S.A.

First Defendant

Second, Third and Fifth Defendants

Defendants

Fourth Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim Regarding Advance Payment Guarantees / Post Judgment Applications: Permission to Appeal, Stay Pending Appeal, Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants should be granted permission to appeal the refusal of a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending appeal or application for permission to appeal
  3. 3 Whether filing a defence constitutes a step in proceedings under s.9(3) Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal the refusal of a stay under s.9 Arbitration Act 1996 was refused as the appeal did not meet the threshold under CPR Part 52.6. Filing a defence under reservation, pursuant to a court order, does not constitute a step in proceedings under s.9(3) and does not prejudice the defendants' right to seek a stay. The claimant is entitled to two-thirds of its costs of the applications, reflecting the mixed outcome.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; defendants to file defences within two months; claimant awarded two-thirds of its costs of the applications; payment on account of costs ordered.

Orders

  • Defendants to file their defences by 21 November 2017, without prejudice to their appeal rights.
  • Case management conference to be fixed after defences are filed.