Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v Prolat SRL

Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd v Prolat SRL

Prolat, through its agent Mr Dibranco and by its own conduct, agreed to the terms of the contract and addenda, including the arbitration clause. The arbitration agreement was evidenced in writing and binding under section 5 Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitral tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract and addenda.

Parties
Claimant: Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd; Defendant: Prolat S. R. L
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Application for Determination of Substantive Jurisdiction Under Section 32 Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Declaration granted: the arbitral tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes between Toyota and Prolat arising from the contract and addenda.
Legal Topics
Substantive Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Existence of Arbitration Agreement, Agency, Governing Law, Enforcement of Arbitration Clause
Arbitration Commercial Law Contract Law Substantive Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal Existence of Arbitration Agreement Agency Governing Law Enforcement of Arbitration Clause

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

Parties

Toyota Tsusho Sugar Trading Ltd

Claimant

Prolat S. R. L

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Application / Judgment on Application for Determination of Substantive Jurisdiction Under Section 32 Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a concluded agreement to arbitrate between Toyota and Prolat
  2. 2 Whether the arbitral tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract and addenda
  3. 3 Whether Prolat is bound by the arbitration clause despite not signing the contract

Ratio Decidendi

Prolat, through its agent Mr Dibranco and by its own conduct, agreed to the terms of the contract and addenda, including the arbitration clause. The arbitration agreement was evidenced in writing and binding under section 5 Arbitration Act 1996. The arbitral tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes arising from the contract and addenda.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted: the arbitral tribunal has substantive jurisdiction over disputes between Toyota and Prolat arising from the contract and addenda.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Tribunal appointed by the Refined Sugar Association has substantive jurisdiction over any dispute between Toyota and Prolat arising out of or in connection with Sale Contract No 500079 and three amending Addenda.
  • Prolat to pay Toyota's costs of and occasioned by this arbitration claim, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.