Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

Emmott v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

The tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute concerning the Steppe shares as it arose out of the relationship established by the 2001 agreement. The court should enforce the tribunal's peremptory order under section 42, as the arbitral process was exhausted and MWP failed to comply. The court should grant a freezing order under section 44 due to a real risk of dissipation of the Steppe shares, supporting the arbitral process.

Parties
Claimant: John Forster Emmott; Defendant: Michael Wilson & Partners Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Arbitration Related Proceedings / Ruling on Applications for Enforcement of Arbitral Orders and Challenge to Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications by Mr. Emmott granted; application by MWP dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitral Orders, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Freezing Orders, Partnership Obligations
Arbitration Commercial Law Enforcement of Arbitral Orders Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Freezing Orders Partnership Obligations

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Forster Emmott

Claimant

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Arbitration Related Proceedings / Ruling on Applications for Enforcement of Arbitral Orders and Challenge to Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal had jurisdiction over the 2005 agreement concerning Steppe shares
  2. 2 Whether the court should enforce the tribunal's peremptory order under section 42 of the Arbitration Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether a freezing order should be granted under section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute concerning the Steppe shares as it arose out of the relationship established by the 2001 agreement. The court should enforce the tribunal's peremptory order under section 42, as the arbitral process was exhausted and MWP failed to comply. The court should grant a freezing order under section 44 due to a real risk of dissipation of the Steppe shares, supporting the arbitral process.

Court Disposition

Applications by Mr. Emmott granted; application by MWP dismissed.

Orders

  • MWP required to comply with the tribunal's peremptory order by 4pm on 13 January 2009.
  • Freezing order granted in respect of 27% of the Steppe shares, subject to amendments allowing tribunal and MWP to apply for variation or discharge.