Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v Prolat SRL [2014] EWHC 3649 (Comm) (07 November 2014)

Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v Prolat SRL [2014] EWHC 3649 (Comm) (07 November 2014)

Prolat, through its conduct and the authority given to Mr Dibranco, was party to a contract and arbitration agreement with Toyota, which was made or evidenced in writing. The arbitration clause was incorporated and binding. The tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract and addenda.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 3649 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd; Defendant: Prolat S. R. L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Act 1996, S.32 Application / Determination of Substantive Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal
Outcome
Declaration granted in favour of Toyota; costs awarded to Toyota against Prolat.
Legal Topics
Arbitration Agreement Formation, Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Agency, Choice of Law, Contract Formation
Arbitration Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Arbitration Agreement Formation Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Agency Choice of Law Contract Formation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd

Claimant

Prolat S. R. L

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Act 1996, S.32 Application / Determination of Substantive Jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding arbitration agreement between Toyota and Prolat
  2. 2 Whether the arbitration tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract and addenda

Ratio Decidendi

Prolat, through its conduct and the authority given to Mr Dibranco, was party to a contract and arbitration agreement with Toyota, which was made or evidenced in writing. The arbitration clause was incorporated and binding. The tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract and addenda.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted in favour of Toyota; costs awarded to Toyota against Prolat.

Orders

  • Declaration that the arbitration tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes arising out of or in connection with Sale Contract No 500079 and its three addenda.
  • Prolat to pay Toyota's costs of and occasioned by this arbitration claim, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.