MSH Ltd v HCS Ltd
CTW Ltd acted as agent for HCS Ltd with actual authority at the time the contract was concluded; contract terms did not expressly or impliedly exclude HCS Ltd’s rights as undisclosed principal; therefore, HCS Ltd was party to the contract and MSH Ltd’s s.67 challenge fails.
- Parties
- Claimant: MSH Ltd; Defendant: HCS Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 04 July 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.67 Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Undisclosed Principal, Agency, Contract Interpretation, Arbitration Jurisdiction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
MSH Ltd
Claimant
HCS Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge / Judgment on S.67 Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Was HCS Ltd party to the contract as an undisclosed principal?
- 2 Did CTW Ltd have authority to contract on behalf of HCS Ltd?
- 3 Do the terms of the contract preclude enforcement by an undisclosed principal?
Ratio Decidendi
CTW Ltd acted as agent for HCS Ltd with actual authority at the time the contract was concluded; contract terms did not expressly or impliedly exclude HCS Ltd’s rights as undisclosed principal; therefore, HCS Ltd was party to the contract and MSH Ltd’s s.67 challenge fails.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment