Sterling v Rand & Anor

Sterling v Rand & Anor

The Court declined to enforce the Award because new evidence revealed inconsistencies and possible non-disclosure to the Beth Din regarding the true parties to the contract and the receipt of housing benefit. Enforcement would not be in the interests of justice and may be contrary to public policy. The application was not dismissed but left open for the parties to address the new evidence before the Beth Din.

Parties
Claimant: Mr David Sterling; Defendant: Mrs Miriam Rand; Defendant: Mr Morris Rand
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Enforcement Application / Judgment on Application for Summary Enforcement of Arbitration Award
Outcome
Application for enforcement declined; not dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Specific Performance, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals, Public Policy in Enforcement, Remedies Relating to Land, Discretion Under Arbitration Act 1996 S.66
Arbitration Property Law Equity Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Specific Performance Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunals Public Policy in Enforcement Remedies Relating to Land +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr David Sterling

Claimant

Mrs Miriam Rand

Defendant

Mr Morris Rand

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Enforcement Application / Judgment on Application for Summary Enforcement of Arbitration Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Beth Din have power to order transfer of the Property under Arbitration Act 1996?
  2. 2 Is it too late for the Defendants to object to the tribunal's powers?
  3. 3 Does the Court have power to order specific performance if the tribunal lacked it?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court declined to enforce the Award because new evidence revealed inconsistencies and possible non-disclosure to the Beth Din regarding the true parties to the contract and the receipt of housing benefit. Enforcement would not be in the interests of justice and may be contrary to public policy. The application was not dismissed but left open for the parties to address the new evidence before the Beth Din.

Court Disposition

Application for enforcement declined; not dismissed

Orders

  • No order for transfer of the Property to Claimant or nominee
  • Application remains open for parties to address new evidence before the Beth Din