Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm) (08 June 2011)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Emmott [2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm) (08 June 2011)

MWP's applications under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 fail. The Tribunal did not commit serious irregularity nor make obvious errors of law. The Tribunal's interpretation of the Emmott Agreement, findings on beneficial ownership of Max shares, and remedies awarded were within its discretion and supported by evidence and legal principles. No substantial injustice was caused and no grounds for appeal are established.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd.; Defendant: John Forster Emmott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69
Outcome
Applications under sections 68 and 69 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68, Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69, Fiduciary Duties, Remedies in Arbitration, Trusts and Beneficial Ownership, Partnership Dissolution, Breach of Contract
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Equity Serious Irregularity Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.68 Appeal on Point of Law Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.69 Fiduciary Duties Remedies in Arbitration +3 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd.

Claimant

John Forster Emmott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Challenge Under Arbitration Act 1996 / Judgment on Applications Under Sections 68 and 69

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal committed serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal made obvious errors of law under s.69 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Entitlement to shareholding and remedies for breach of fiduciary duty

Ratio Decidendi

MWP's applications under sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 fail. The Tribunal did not commit serious irregularity nor make obvious errors of law. The Tribunal's interpretation of the Emmott Agreement, findings on beneficial ownership of Max shares, and remedies awarded were within its discretion and supported by evidence and legal principles. No substantial injustice was caused and no grounds for appeal are established.

Court Disposition

Applications under sections 68 and 69 dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission granted for May and January amendments to claim form.
  • No relief granted to MWP under sections 68 or 69.