Assaubayev & Ors v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

Assaubayev & Ors v Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd

The application for a stay is dismissed because MWP, by holding itself out as a solicitor, going on the court record, and performing reserved legal activities, cannot rely on the arbitration agreement to oust the court's jurisdiction under the Solicitors Act 1974. To allow MWP to do so would permit it to benefit from its own wrongdoing, contrary to established legal principles. The arbitration agreement is therefore null, void and inoperative in this context.

Parties
Claimant: Kanat Shaikhanovich Assaubayev; Claimant: Marusya Maralovna Assaubayev; Claimant: Baurzhan Kanatovich Assaubayev; Claimant: Aidar Kanatovich Assaubayev; Claimant: Sanzhar Kanatovich Assaubayev; Claimant: Hawkinson Capital Inc.; Claimant: JSC Credit Altyn Bank; Defendant: Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Costs Application / Arbitration Stay / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration
Outcome
Application for stay dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Solicitors Act 1974, Arbitration Act 1996, Jurisdiction of English Courts, Unqualified Persons Acting as Solicitors
Arbitration Legal Profession Regulation Costs Stay of Proceedings Solicitors Act 1974 Arbitration Act 1996 Jurisdiction of English Courts Unqualified Persons Acting as Solicitors

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 4 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanat Shaikhanovich Assaubayev

Claimant

Marusya Maralovna Assaubayev

Claimant

Baurzhan Kanatovich Assaubayev

Claimant

Aidar Kanatovich Assaubayev

Claimant

Sanzhar Kanatovich Assaubayev

Claimant

Hawkinson Capital Inc.

Claimant

JSC Credit Altyn Bank

Claimant

Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Application / Arbitration Stay / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings Pending Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings under the Solicitors Act 1974 should be stayed under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 or the inherent jurisdiction of the court
  2. 2 Whether there is a concluded arbitration agreement covering the dispute
  3. 3 Whether the arbitration agreement is null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay is dismissed because MWP, by holding itself out as a solicitor, going on the court record, and performing reserved legal activities, cannot rely on the arbitration agreement to oust the court's jurisdiction under the Solicitors Act 1974. To allow MWP to do so would permit it to benefit from its own wrongdoing, contrary to established legal principles. The arbitration agreement is therefore null, void and inoperative in this context.

Court Disposition

Application for stay dismissed

Orders

  • Application dated 27 January 2012 dismissed
  • Any application for permission to appeal to be dealt with on paper within 14 days